Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Rail Services (Scotland)

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a brief point of order, particularly as I raised a similar one only last week, and you were also indulgent on that occasion.
The written answers that I received from the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport last night further reveal that the possible outcomes of promised consultation on the future of threatened Scottish rail services—for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been pressing—have not been costed by Ministers and Departments. Closing the services, mothballing the services or restarting them if the consultation process is successful all have cost implications.
In light of that, have you, Madam Speaker, been given any sign as to whether Ministers want to make a statement later today in the House? Obviously, those written answers completely give the lie to the assurances that we were given about consultation.

Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has frequently raised the issue in the House. I have not been informed by the Government that they are seeking to make a statement, but they have until 10 o'clock to inform me of their intentions.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

MEAT (HYGIENE AND INSPECTION)

That the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 539) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 540) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES: LICENSING

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out '18' and insert '17'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
or
(c) facilities provided as part of the training of full-time or part-time military personnel.

Mr. Leigh: It will be apparent from what I said on Second Reading that, while I fully appreciate the necessity for some action to be taken because of the terrible tragedy at Lyme bay, I am worried about the Bill's regulatory nature. That worry lies behind my amendments, which should shed some interesting light on the Bill. My amendments simply suggest that the Bill should not cover facilities provided as part of the training of full-time or part-time military personnel.
I wish to insert the age of 17 rather than 18, because as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware, it is perfectly possible to join the Territorial Army or the Army and to die for one's country at the age of 17. I shall make some general comments to introduce my speech, then make some legal points, as I think that there is some slight ambiguity about the scope of the Bill. Lastly, I shall tell the House the nature of the detailed regulations covering Army training.
It would be absurd and ludicrous if the Health and Safety Executive were in any way involved in the training of soldiers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education, will be able to tell me that he does not intend the measure to cover soldiers. I shall deal with that in a moment and demonstrate that my research shows that there may be doubt about that.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend may be coming to this point later, in which case I apologise. He is probably aware that in many parts of the country, including my constituency, there is an active and popular air training corps. I understand that the future of the air cadets has recently been in question. Would the activities of such an organisation come within the scope of amendment No. 3?

Mr. Leigh: I hope that the words
full-time or part-time military personnel
include air cadets. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening, because he makes the point for me.
The purpose of this little debate is to show that, when a tragedy occurs, enormous pressure is put on the Government to act. That inevitably leads to the publication of a Bill, then to a measure such as the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill. Often when a Bill is rushed through, it


includes many classes of persons because insufficient consideration was given to its drafting. That is my worry about any regulatory Bill.
I do not deny the appalling nature of the Lyme bay tragedy. Parents rightly want something done. Awful mistakes were made, and a price was paid. I do not know who drafted the Bill. As it is a private Member's Bill, I presume that it was drafted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). I do not know whether or not he was assisted by the Government. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say. Does the hon. Gentleman have the legal expertise to ensure that the Bill is so tightly drafted that it will not have unforeseen consequences?
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), in an excellent contribution, said that the number of regulators already in place in an outdoor activity centre in his constituency totalled seven or eight. The hon. Member for Devonport intervened to suggest that they would be replaced by one regulator—the Health and Safety Commission. We know that that does not happen in the real world. Regulation will be piled on regulation, with the result that some activity centres, which provide an inexpensive service and are highly regarded, may be forced out of business.
My hon. Friend the Minister may say that he does not want military training included in the Bill's ambit and that there can be consultation, but that is not good enough. Why pass legislation in a rush and consult on it later? Why not include appropriate provisions now, by stipulating in clause 1(3)
facilities provided as part of the training of full-time or part-time military personnel"?
The House will pay tribute to the close interest paid in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who has shown himself to be an excellent parliamentarian. After we discussed my amendments together, I went to the Library, telephoned the Ministry of Defence and, with the Library's assistance, spoke to the Army.
Nobody could tell me whether the Bill embraces the Army, yet here we are on the last day for consideration of the Bill, without knowing whether the Bill encompasses our huge military training establishment, which costs hundreds of millions of pounds and has hundreds of years of experience. I will describe later—but briefly, of course—how carefully drafted are Army regulations.
Many Army cadets are under 18. Army regulations are submitted to the House every five years. Even where they cover safety aspects, doubt remains. A civilian who goes on a one-day Army course would not be employed by the Army or even be an Army cadet. Will he be covered by the Bill?

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: One of the most miserable weekends that I ever spent was on the Brecon Beacons in a massive blizzard in the dead of winter, under the auspices of the Combined Cadet Force. I was sent by my school. It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend talk

about lack of consultation with the Army, but schools will have a major input. Is it not curious that this matter has been a blank area for so long?

Mr. Leigh: I will leave that point for the hon. Member for Devonport. He will probably reassure my hon. Friend that schools are in loco parentis and covered by existing Education Acts, and therefore not covered by the Bill. It worries me that that is not on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Several years ago, I went to Crickhowell, and the scars remain with me. It was an extremely long weekend, during which we took part in an assault course. The Army put us through that misery because it wanted to attract us to the Army's way of life. One cannot imagine anything less attractive than that weekend at Crickhowell. However, youngsters are encouraged to go on such assault courses to make men of them. Hon. Members can see what it has done for me. It should be made clear whether or not Army assault courses would be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that experience did him the world of good. He is a fine, upstanding fellow. Can he imagine some little chap from the Health and Safety Executive standing by while my hon. Friend was forced over a jump, saying how horrible the sergeant-major was? I am sure no one wants an HSE inspector wandering around Army training courses. That might be dangerous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who has a long-standing interest in military matters, ensured Crown immunity from certain Acts of Parliament. Earlier legislation—such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment Act 1991 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974—took great care to ensure that the Crown was excluded. Schedule 7(1) to the 1991 Act states:
The power of the Secretary of State under section 48(4) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (Crown exemptions) shall include power to provide for exemptions, in relation to designated premises or activities carried on by a contractor at such premises, from all or any of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of Part I of that Act.
I looked for such a schedule to the Bill—I hope that the House is convinced by my arguments that the Army should not be covered by it—but could not find one. Perhaps that is because the Bill was rushed through, and the Government have not been able to vote sufficient resources to it.
Section 48(1) of the 1974 Act specifically applies to the Crown:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the provisions of this Part, except sections 21 to 25 and 33 to 42, and of regulations made under this Part shall bind the Crown.
That makes it clear that parts of that Act will bind the Crown, but subsection 2 states:
Although they do not bind the Crown, sections 33 to 42 shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as they apply to other persons.
Given the detailed nature of that previous Act, is the Minister not convinced that there is a lacuna in this Bill? There is at least some ambiguity about whether people undertaking courses who are not employed by the Crown are covered by the Bill.
Section 48(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act says:
For the purposes of this Part and regulations made thereunder persons in the service of the Crown shall be treated as employees of the Crown".
That is specific and clear.
The parliamentary draftsmen who drew up previous legislation were clearly aware of the problem to which I have alluded, so I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. This is not a dry legal argument among lawyers which does not matter very much but which may be interesting in terms of jurisprudence: it is actually quite important.
I am sorry that she is not here today, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who so often on Friday mornings makes excellent speeches, served on the Standing Committee. I was not fortunate enough to serve on it, but I have researched its proceedings. She said in Committee:
I shudder when I think of the total confidence I had when I allowed my then 15-year-old son to take part in a Royal Navy exercise. He was taken on a frigate to the North sea in wild, tossing waters, lifted by a helicopter, swung on the end of a rope and dumped heartily into the sea. I am glad to say that my son was well equipped, wearing a life jacket and a dry suit—he was totally safe. When I think back, I am horrified because it never occurred to me to quiz the Royal Navy about its safety procedures and first aid procedures to be implemented should things go wrong.
I was lucky. My son was in expert hands and came home".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 1 March 1995; c. 52.]
I am sure that the House is grateful to the Royal Navy for looking after my hon. Friend's son so well. Here we have an example of a mother who placed her son in the hands of the armed services. Nothing could be more dangerous than going up in a helicopter, being dumped into the sea—and all in the hands of total strangers.
What goes on in most activity centres is on a wholly different scale. I have taken the trouble to get in touch with the British Activity Holiday Association, the trade association involved. It is small, and lacks the resources to fight the Government, the hon. Member for Devonport or this House. The organisation told me that many people do not realise that many of its activities involve simply going around a swimming pool in canoes, and other indoor pursuits. Much of what goes on is not very dangerous. That is quite different from being taken up in a helicopter and dumped in the sea.

Mr. David Jamieson: I would not want this moment to pass with the House thinking that the British Activity Holiday Association was opposed to my Bill. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Education Select Committee's report on activity centres, which I am sure he has read assiduously. Mr. Hudson, the chairman of the organisation, told the Committee:
We feel that there has got to be a structure to which activity centres have got to work, and let me say, from the start, that we welcome Mr. Jamieson's Bill and we support it.

Mr. Leigh: I have not denied that, but the organisation would like regulations to be applied with as light a touch as possible. I, and presumably other hon. Members, have received a letter from Mr. Hudson in which he says:
We feel that many people envisaging our industry from outside think in terms of activities on the sea or in wild country. Many centres do work in this sort of open environment, along with some private centres, but most BAHA centres operate in a closed

environment providing introductions to activities in highly controlled conditions, eg within centre grounds or on a school campus.
Of course the organisation has to welcome the Bill—in a sense it has no choice—but I should have thought that it was concerned, rightly, about a whole new layer of regulation to be imposed on the industry.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend might like to know that I too spoke to Mr. Hudson recently. Of course, the association supports the principles of the Bill, but it has a number of concerns, not least the possible cost implications of the new regulations. Operators have some anxiety, and my hon. Friend is right to draw it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Leigh: That is precisely what worries me about the Bill. Many of these organisations are very small indeed. I am disappointed that the Government, who are committed to the deregulation initiative, could not find some way of ensuring self-regulation of the industry. This is a sad debate: sad because of the original tragedy, and sad that we are now regulating a whole new industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to get back to the amendment.

Mr. Leigh: I am happy to do that.
I have obtained the Army cadet force regulations of 1973. A casual glance at them shows that there is no more comprehensive supervision of those undertaking training exercise than that carried out by the armed forces. They have a wealth of experience; often the training that they perform is very dangerous indeed. It is absurd to contemplate the idea of subjecting the armed forces to the strictures of outside bodies.
Section 0207 of the manual states:
training is carried out at a steady rate, compatible with the increasing abilities of a growing boy and to maintain his interest; the training syllabus should form a sound basis for planning unit training programmes … He must therefore be given progressive responsibility in training, instruction and administration.
Section 0218 states:
Courses of instruction for officers, other adults and cadets are arranged at Ministry of Defence Training Establishments or by districts/areas".
That suggests to me that people who are not necessarily employed by the Army may be involved in instruction.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to assure me that those directly employed by the Army may not be covered, I should have thought that Army regulations show that civilians may be involved and thus may be subject to the ambit of the Bill.
The manual further states that the aim of the annual camp is to give adults and cadets
training of a more interesting type by carrying out an exercise on a higher level.
Those of us who have been on these annual camps know that sometimes the courses can be extremely exhausting. Far more deaths and injuries have been recorded in Army training than in any civilian centres.
I fear that, following the passage of this Bill, nannying political pressure will build up. People will ask whether it is right to put our young men under such strain in these Army camps. There will be, perhaps, well-publicised cases of men on long route marches coming to grief.


Then, as a result of this Bill, people may say that the law should be involved. The regulations, in section 0234, deal in some detail with unexploded missiles. That shows that the Army is well aware that this sort of training can be far more dangerous than anything envisaged in the sort of activities conducted under the auspices of the trade association to which I have referred.
I hope hon. Members will think, whatever the instant reply by the Government, that I have shown that, although it is right to be concerned about a particular tragedy, legislation, if not carefully drafted, may have unforeseen consequences. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me some reassurances on this matter.

10 am

Mr. Piers Merchant: I have discussed the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). He had the courtesy to discuss the tabling of his amendment with me, as I was a member of the Standing Committee and he was not. I knew from Second Reading that he had an interest in the Bill. Our views differ slightly on the need for the Bill and the extent to which it should run, but his concerns about the area covered by the amendment are valid.
Perhaps I should refer to my hon. Friend as my hon. and gallant Friend, bearing in mind that he served for a short while as a student in the Royal Navy. In fact, we were at university together. I well remember that he disappeared during holidays. When I entertained myself, my hon. Friend went to sea. He was at sea for a considerable period. Indeed, some say that he is still at sea.
My hon. Friend was training to be a member of the Royal Navy. He was under military regulations and was serving on a naval vessel. He was training and taking a considerable risk. It would be amazing if the Bill were to be extended to cover the armed forces, with the result that regulations in the Bill or a health and safety official instructed them not to take the risks that military training necessarily involves.
One of the most important parts of the Bill is the need for instructors and supervisors—those providing "leadership", to adopt the word used in the Bill—to have proper qualifications. That is something that we shall consider in more detail when we come to a later amendment.
The requirements that the Bill seeks to introduce are already catered for in other areas of life. I have much in mind the high quality of training that instructors in the armed services receive. The regulations and systems that they employ have been developed over many years to ensure as much safety as possible. The existing regulations and safeguards are sufficient for military personnel, and the Bill should not extend to the armed forces.
I am not certain to what extent the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and my hon. Friend the Minister have considered the possibility of the Bill being extended to have force in the armed services. They may be able to reassure us in a few moments that they have thought about military training and have specifically excluded it from this measure. I hope that they will be able to give us that assurance.
At the same time, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle in pressing for such an exclusion to be included in the Bill, and not in the form of a reassurance, so that, at some future date, we do not find that, despite the original intention of the House, the Secretary of State extends regulations to include military personnel.
The Army, the Navy and the Air Force could conceivably use private organisations to provide facilities for the training of their personnel. The use of such facilities is referred to as "adventure activities" in the Bill, but training activity is entirely different. For children at school, "adventure activities" are a form of education and fun. For military personnel, training is an entirely different matter. Training is designed to equip military personnel to face the most difficult odds. They may have to face situations in which they are killed while fighting for the country. They have to face various forms of military activity.
We know that cadets and young soldiers are sent to the Brecon Beacons, where they have to go through extremely tough training. Unfortunately, there are injuries. It is sad that occasionally personnel undergoing training are killed. I know of many who have gone to the Brecon Beacons for training, either people who are full-time personnel in the armed services or, more often, people who serve in the TA. They all attest to the fact that the training is rigorous. They are expected to undergo things that I hope children at school would never be expected to experience. The training of military personnel is an entirely separate form of activity. It would be most unfortunate if the Bill were used to limit, define or regulate such training.
I do not believe that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Devonport, bearing in mind the development of the excellent clauses that are now set out in the Bill, for military training to be covered by the regulations that will ensue. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, I think that a specific exclusion is needed. My hon. Friend's amendment is therefore apposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle talked about combined cadet forces and schools. Traditionally, many quite young boys and some girls join their CCF while at school and undergo a form of military training. When young people join a CCF, it is always made clear to them—although the CCF existed at my school, I did not join it—[Interruption.] Yes, I was always regarded as something of a wimp. I think that my hon. Friends still take that view, judging by their sedentary comments. I preferred to serve in the school library.

Mr. Waterson: A trustie.

Mr. Merchant: Yes, I was regarded as a trustie. My service in the library gave me useful training for surmounting the obstacles posed by the House of Commons Library.
When children joined the CCF or its equivalent, it was always made clear to them that they were joining as young soldiers. They were told that, once they wore the uniform, they were expected to behave as soldiers. Equally, they were expected to undergo the training—perhaps in a milder form—that full-time soldiers underwent. It would be most unfortunate if the protection that the Bill will give to children undergoing education and adventure activities


were to be extended to those who join the CCF. Different forms of activity are involved. The Bill could easily be extended to include CCF activities.
I sympathise with the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle that the Bill should not be extended to cover areas outside its original limits. He is right to draw attention to well-intentioned Bills that the House has passed that later became broadened to cover much wider areas than originally intended. It is right that we should scrutinise the Bill with that in mind. We should consider amendments to limit the Bill. We should not accept the rather uncertain future of ministerial regulation.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister would not seek to widen the Bill more than necessary. In future, however, a different Secretary of State—perhaps, Heaven forbid, from a different party—might have other motives and might use the Bill to extend regulations to cover the armed forces, possibly even as a deliberate attempt to weaken the sharp edge of the armed forces.
That Secretary of State might introduce well-intentioned regulations that would undermine the effectiveness of the armed forces. He might introduce some namby-pamby training system that led to health and safety officers jumping out of foxholes to issue warnings.
We are talking of men who are trained to face the rigours of war. The men who served in trenches during the first world war had to take unbelievable risks in defending their country. They had to be trained. There were no health and safety officers jumping out of trenches saying, "No, don't put your head over the top, you might get shot. It is rather dangerous. You might slip on that mud and break your leg."
Training in the armed forces is entirely different from education at school. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said, however, that some of those who undergo army training are of school age. It is important that clear distinctions should be set out in the Bill to ensure that its provisions do not apply to the armed forces in any sense. Its original purpose—that of protecting children undergoing ordinary education—should remain.

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is regrettable that the Bill has to be introduced as a result of the tragedy at Lyme bay.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might allow me, while speaking to the amendment, to congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on presenting the Bill.
Amendment No. 2 specifically refers to full-time and part-time military personnel. I too have had experience, similar to that of my hon. Friends, of some of the cadet force jolly jaunts to which they referred, and when I was a serving officer, I sat on the other side of the fence, as an instructor having to organise them.
The Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and similar organisations that understudy the other services, are, of course, designed to bring out the latent potential for self-reliance, physical courage and so on of young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said, there is some concern—quite rightly—that the Bill may impinge on Her Majesty's forces, and that, of course, particularly by default, would be entirely wrong.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, and the hon. Member for Devonport, will tackle that point, because I believe that it should be resolved, if possible, today. We have to be careful that we do not indulge in some knee-jerk reaction simply because of the tragedy at Lyme bay—or, indeed, any other tragedy.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle that, as the Bill currently stands, we may well be over-reacting. It is entirely appropriate that we take time today and in the future to consider the matters carefully. It would be entirely absurd if the Health and Safety Executive or the Health and Safety Commission were to have any say in the activities of adventurous training relating to soldiers and service men and service women, not just in the Army but the other services as well.
I venture to suggest that service instructors are in fact much better qualified than their civilian counterparts. I honestly believe—without meaning to make any disrespectful remarks whatever about civilian instructors who instruct in adventurous training but who have never served in Her Majesty's forces—that the best instructors in the voluntary sector are former members of the services.
I referred specifically to the ACF, of which I have most experience. I notice that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I have had the pleasure—although at times it was a rather dubious one—and privilege of instructing the children of many of his constituents, at camps in the Isle of Man, Scotland and southern England.
The whole purpose of the adventurous training activities with which the amendment is concerned is to provide a firm foundation, to bring out the latent potential, to which I referred, of physical courage, self-reliance and so on, through a variety of activities, which might include abseiling, canoeing, hill walking, orienteering, general physical training and fitness.
The purpose of those activities, in the military context to which the amendment refers, was to provide an environment that was challenging for those young people, to test their abilities to a particular limit, whatever their age and physical capabilities, and to push them to that limit so that they would be better able to understand their own capabilities and to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses, and to do so in an environment that was as safe as it possibly could be.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), referred to the ages of many of the cadets in the cadet forces. The majority are under 17 years of age. I am particularly concerned, in relation to the amendment, that we consider whether the HSE, for example, should have some role in the competence of civilian instructors who were instructing Army cadets or cadets from the other services, and to compare that role with the instructors who wear a service uniform and are subject to Queen's regulations. It would be a nightmare if there were to be one rule for one set of instructors and another rule for another.
10.15 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle mentioned the ACF training manual. I believe that he is entirely right to say that it is one of the most comprehensive documents that we could possibly have to deal with the training of our young people. He specifically referred to a number of sections in the regulations which


referred to training being organised at a steady rate—I think those were his words—compatible with the age group in question.
Bearing in mind the fact that those cadets are often trained by service personnel, who are, as I have already intimated, in my view better qualified than civilian instructors, it is important that we make it quite clear that the HSE should not have a major say in the way in which that training is carried out, because if it did, it would make a mockery of the way in which the Army and the other services carry out their adventurous training.

Mr. Leigh: Is my hon. Friend aware that, such is the detail of the regulations, which may, apparently, be covered by the Bill—there are more than 2,000 of them—that, for example, regulation 1135 says:
Soap is not to be issued from Army sources. The cost of purchase is to be charged to the consolidated grant"—
no doubt, the Treasury Bench. That is the detail that the Army has amassed over two centuries and which may perhaps be covered by the ambit of the Bill. It is absurd.

Mr. Banks: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his own point in his own way.
When the Army sets about training its young soldiers and the Army cadets it looks after from time to time at annual training camps and so on—and the cadet training teams throughout the country, who do such a splendid job during the week, either at school-combined cadet forces or ACFs; the same is true for the other services—it is very much dealing with a military scenario. The whole point of adventurous training—this is pertinent to my hon. Friend's amendment—is that the bottom line is that one needs to train young soldiers and Army cadets to know their own capabilities, to push them physically to a particular limit when they are young, and to "the" limit, whatever that may be, when they get older.
When one joins the services—my hon. Friend gave the Army as an example—one knows that one may well be put into an environment that is extremely hostile, in which one's life may be put on the line, and one knows that one will potentially be doing a very dangerous job. That is why it is important that, in the adventurous training activities to which I referred, particularly the physical activities—my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to his experiences on the Brecon Beacons—unless there is an element of danger, unless young people are pushed to a particular limit, whatever it may be at a particular time—it will vary depending on age, and will be much greater and much more arduous when one joins the services full-time—unless one is pushed, one will not understand what it will be like to be pushed into a hostile environment.
Although there is physical danger in activities such as canoeing and abseiling, fortunately one is not usually being shot at while engaging in them. However, in that kind of controlled environment, it is important for young people to have the opportunity to understand what the real thing will be like. It is also important that, in that environment, the instructors of young cadets and young soldiers can see precisely what they are like, where their strengths and weaknesses are. It is a vital part of training.
My hon. Friends mentioned some of their experiences. I shall mention one. While listening to them, I was mindful of the fact that, every time I went abseiling as an

instructor, whether in the Brecon Beacons or in a quarry with a small drop, I knew that we would break for lunch. When I dropped off the side in the afternoon after a good lunch, I was just as nervous as when I was undertaking the activity in the morning. Given the worries and difficulties that went through my mind as an instructor, I was perfectly able to understand what it was like for a young cadet.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend was here when I relived the nightmare of the weekend in Crickhowell. Deep scars remain. Does he agree that, when the armed services are giving youngsters who are perhaps not part of a cadet training force a weekend taster for the services, they pay due regard to the health and safety of the youngsters in their charge?
Does he further agree that we do not want to go to the ridiculous length of a sergeant saying to me or to a 12 or 14-year-old youngster, "I want you to climb this 12 ft wall and jump from it using just a rope," and giving the youngster the opportunity to say, "Well, sergeant, I would rather not—it's dangerous"?
Given my hon. Friend's obvious expertise in this matter, can he say what regard the armed services pay to the safety of youngsters, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a long intervention.

Mr. Banks: I think that I have the gist of my hon. Friend's important point. The amendment specifically mentions the armed forces, and I—and, I think, many of my hon. Friends—agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle that the armed forces should not be subject to the Bill's provisions. That is why he moved his amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked specifically about training. Bearing in mind my earlier remarks about pushing cadets and young soldiers to their limit, I can reassure my hon. Friend that, in my experience, cadets who were seen to be getting into physical difficulties were told to stop. The training was organised by serving soldiers and officers in a controlled environment, and they could say to people in difficulties, "Don't move. We will come and pick you up." That would be done if the cadets were close to a road in the Brecon Beacons or perhaps on an assault course.
Although it is necessary to push cadets to the limit, the limit will vary in individual cases, because of age and physical strength. If a cadet being trained by a serving soldier rather than a civilian instructor is seen to be getting into difficulties, it would be possible for the military instructor to call a halt. But it is a fine balance, and the training is designed to be tough.
I sometimes wonder how I managed to do some of the things that I did. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) was extremely lucky that there was not 6 in of snow on the ground when he engaged in whatever he was doing—he did not say who it was with—in the Brecon Beacons.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Banks: I was hoping to come back to the amendment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ainsworth: I thought I had made it clear that I was in the Brecon Beacons with the combined cadet force.
My hon. Friend spoke about assault courses. I can assure him from my own experience that, although sergeant-majors are not noted for their light touch in dealing with schoolboys who get stuck at the top of those unpleasant rope things which one has to climb, after five minutes of shouting and abuse, the penny dropped for me. They took control of the situation in the way that my hon. Friend has described, and got me down. I was relieved, and almost applied to become a librarian like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped to get back to the amendment. I also hope that he will do that.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for relating his further experiences.
It is important to recognise all this, and to take the time and trouble to look more closely at the Bill, so that the clause does not result in a knee-jerk reaction. It would be absurd if serving soldiers and members of the other services were subject to its provisions.
As I have said, the whole point of the training is to recognise the potential of each cadet. Perhaps, if my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East had been encouraged even more aggressively, he might have made it to the top of the rope and come back down again. That is the point of such activities, and the firm foundation of the military is to push cadets and young soldiers—I distinguish between the two—as far as they can go.
That makes young people begin to realise that they are able to undertake a particular activity and achieve an objective that they never thought they were physically able to achieve. That is the sort of training that the military tries to provide for its cadets, so that, when they join the services, they better understand how they tick, and will understand a hostile environment.
I have drawn a distinction between the qualifications of a serving soldier and civilian instructors. Training is usually carried out by non-commissioned and warrant officers, who are usually young. They form the cadet training teams which do such a tremendous job. Civilian instructors have a different set of qualifications, but I shall not trespass on your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we shall later come to amendments which deal with the qualifications of civilian instructors. No doubt I and some of my hon. Friends will wish to speak at that time.
Any suggestion that serving soldiers, service men and service women should be subject in such training to the general provisions of the Bill is absurd. I hope that the Minister will recognise my genuine concern and that of many of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Waterson: I want to be brief on the amendment, and I wish to associate myself with the congratulations given to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). It is important that the Bill passes what remains of its parliamentary assault course today, and I shall not detain the House any longer than is absolutely necessary.
It is important to bear in mind some crucial matters when tackling the kind of tragedy which spawned the Bill. As my constituency is on the south coast, I am conscious

of the dangers faced by those going out to sea in whatever kind of craft, or without proper supervision or experience. But it is equally important to avoid legislating in haste on an important matter, and reference has been made to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in that regard. The Bill must be applied not only to the tragedy that we are discussing, but to future tragedies which may!be different.
I referred in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to the Air Training Corps, which has a popular and lively group in my constituency. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, we have not yet had a satisfactory answer as to whether air cadets, for example, will come outside the amendment. I shall only put down a marker on that point, as I hope that the promoter of the Bill or the Minister will be able to deal with those points in their speeches. I should say that there is also a thriving and long-established Territorial Army unit in my constituency.
Like several of my hon. Friends, I have served my time in the schools cadet force, where I learned such timeless skills as being able to take apart and put back together a Bren gun with a hood over my head. Unfortunately, the Bren gun became obsolete shortly after I mastered that skill, and it became as much use to me as my lessons in the quickstep and the foxtrot at roughly the same age.
I also had the benefit of annual summer camps with the cadets, although "summer" is an elastic word in that context, because the camps tended to take place in parts of the country where summer obviously meant something different from what it meant where I lived.
It is important to decide where we are drawing the line when we use the phrase "part-time military personnel". We have heard about those who are involved in full-time military training, and it is of course right that those people should not be concerned by the provisions of the Bill. That is common ground, and there has been no dissention from that view so far in the debate.
The real problem comes with the question of part-time personnel. Young people fall into two distinct categories with regard to the activities, and I am keen that these matters are dealt with in detail in the wind-up speeches on the amendments. There are those young people who have volunteered for the cadets or for the Air Training Corps. They are therefore regular members, who go once or twice a week to meetings, regular weekend events and annual camps.
There is a persuasive argument that those young people—or, perhaps more realistically, their parents—are aware of the different risks to which they might be exposed. There may also be a different structure of training and supervision, as was eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who is very much an expert on the issue.
The second category of young people needs to be addressed, and I am not sure that it would be right if they were drawn into the amendment and were therefore excluded from the Bill's provisions. That category is made up of young people who occasionally—certainly not regularly—go to military-run facilities for a day or a weekend, possibly through an arrangement with their school. I am a lawyer myself, and I can see how difficult it would be to draw a line, but I should have thought that those young people should be subject to the full benefits and rigours of the legislation.
Perhaps it is not beyond the wit of man—or the parliamentary draftsmen—to make that clear in the wording of the Bill. Some children and parents may be unable to see a realistic distinction between activities which the children perform both in school and out of school, such as canoeing or boating, and the kind of day or weekend trip about which we are talking.
We have heard a lot this morning about military matters. Someone once said that the trouble with the military was that generals were always preparing to fight the last war, not the next war. That could apply equally to this debate. We have discussed the Lyme bay tragedy, and it must he remembered that it is now two years and two days since that tragedy occurred.
There have been similar tragedies with different details. At Land's End in 1985, four children were swept into the sea and died, and four schoolboys were killed on a trip to Austria in 1988. It is not entirely clear whether such activities are covered by the Bill.
It is important that we do not tailor the Bill to one particular tragedy, desperately sad though it was. We must look forward to other possible incidents, and make a realistic assessment of where the provisions of the Bill should fall. That is why it was important for my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to table the amendment, although I think that further work needs to be done on it.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The debate has been interesting and welcome, as it has enabled many of my hon. Friends who have not so far been able to participate in the detailed consideration of the Bill to show their interest and involvement in it. I very much welcome that, as, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson).
The debate has illustrated the value of the scrutiny process which Bills undergo in the House of Commons and in another place, because an item which now—having listened to the debate—seems to be so obvious to us all had never been raised previously during debates on the Bill. It was not raised on Second Reading or in Committee, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who identified the matter and brought it to the attention of the House.
Before I get into the meat of the issue, I wish to outline some of the background to the Bill, as it is relevant to the consideration of the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that he thought that there was a danger of the Bill being rushed through without proper consideration. I would contest that, because the Bill has received not only a lengthy Second Reading debate—which he will recall—but proper consideration in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) played a distinguished part in that Committee, and raised many questions. I hope that my hon. Friend was satisfied by the replies he received, not so much from me as from the promoter of the Bill, during those detailed discussions. It cannot be said that the Bill was at any stage rushed through, and the House should know that. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
However, my hon. Friend referred to the key issue which we are talking about today. He said that the matter that he had raised in the amendment should be resolved in the Bill. That argument has run throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
It is important that the House and, in particular, my hon. Friend, should understand that, as I read the way in which the Bill has been drafted, it is a framework enabling Bill. It sets out the broad principles of what the hon. Member for Devonport wants to achieve, but—this is the crucial point—after the Bill has received Royal Assent and following a period of detailed consultation, regulations would be drawn up to give detailed effect to the main thrust of the Bill. Because of that, it would be wrong to put too much detail into the Bill now.
I am sure that my hon. Friends recognise that it has always been the case with legislation that, if we put too much detail into a Bill, that sets the Bill in legislative concrete and makes it extraordinarily difficult to adjust and improve it as circumstances demand.
We are in a new area of regulation—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle made most effectively and which I accept. I have always believed, ever since the hon. Member for Devonport introduced his Bill, that to put an excessive level of detail into the Bill would be wrong. Indeed, it would be wrong in principle, because it would set the Bill too rigidly and make it far too difficult for us to return to it subsequently were we to find that it needed improvements. It would also ignore the assumption that we have all made throughout—that there would be a period of consultation and then, on the basis of that, regulations would be introduced, subject to parliamentary approval, to give effect to the detailed requirements of the Bill.
That sets the scene, because it leads to the possibility that, were there to be the sort of errors or lacunae to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle referred, they would be picked up most effectively during the period of consultation.
Let us take the amendment as an example. In consulting everybody who might have an interest in the Bill, we expect many people to make observations on the relevance, for example, of extending the Bill's provisions to military facilities.
That brings me to the substance of the amendment. There is a danger of some confusion—if I dare say that to my hon. Friends. I noted carefully the comments of that distinguished war pensioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who said that service instructors are better qualified than civilian instructors. I made a careful note of his words—something that I always try to do during debates such as this.
Therefore, I equally recall that one or two of my hon. Friends pointed out that, tragically and regrettably, there are injuries and even deaths in the course of military training or activities in military camps. As far as I can tell, such injury and death have been avoided by most of my hon. Friends in the searing experiences which they recanted to us.
We cannot have it both ways, can we? Well, perhaps we can, but it is a little odd. One of my hon. Friends says that military installations are all right because the service instructors are better qualified, while others of my hon. Friends say that injuries and deaths can occur at such installations. I am a little reluctant to go all the way with


those of my hon. Friends who say that we should exclude, as a matter of course, all military facilities from the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Merchant: Surely the point is that the nature and the pressure of the training given to military personnel is that much more intense than in the civilian sector. It is a different sort of activity, and the personnel are stretched to a much higher level. That is why, sadly, injuries and deaths sometimes occur. It has nothing to do with the quality of the instructors.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. I had intended to come to that point later in my speech, but I shall deal with it now. The Bill refers to
facilities which are provided exclusively for persons who have attained the age of 18
being excluded. In other words, any facility that might encompass an activity undertaken by someone under the age of 18 should, at least in principle, be a candidate for inclusion in the scope of the Bill. As we have all said, youngsters under the age of 18 regularly enjoy, in one form or another, the facilities provided by the military. Therefore, it appears that they would be candidates for inclusion in the Bill.
The Bill then refers to facilities to
some element of instruction or leadership.
Again, that appears to encompass the sort of activities provided by military facilities. Therefore, despite the distinction that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) makes, in principle it appears that military facilities are candidates for inclusion in the scope of the Bill. We should at least accept that there is a debatable point; the matter is not entirely black or white.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend's cogent arguments are most persuasive. Can he satisfy my hon. Friends and me that his reference to opportunities in subsequent guidance if the Bill is passed would tackle some of the concerns that we have expressed?

Mr. Forth: Yes, I very much envisage that to be the case. I am trying to explain that I do not want to pre-empt the consultation and regulation-making process. However, I have no doubt that, during that process, these matters will be resolved. One reason why I cannot give the answers that my hon. Friends want is that we have yet to undergo the consultation process.
It is entirely possible that, at some stage, we may want to make a distinction between occasional part-time involvement in military activities and the involvement of full-time military personnel, albeit very young military personnel. I can envisage that possibility, although I do not want to pre-empt the consultative process or the making of regulations.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend's comments are causing me slight concern. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, although I am a lawyer. I thought that my hon. Friend would say that I need not be concerned because the military would be excluded from the scope of the Bill. He actually said the opposite—that it may be included, which I find rather worrying.
I think that my hon. Friend accepts that some of our points about the nature of Army training are valid. Therefore, I hope that, as he develops his speech, he will

give an assurance, on behalf of the Government, that his aim is to use his power during the consultation exercise and the regulation-making process to ensure that the military is excluded from the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend pre-empts what I had intended to say. I can help him by referring to a note that I have been given by my experts, which may reassure him. He has forced my hand, but I will answer his question.
The Bill does not apply to the Crown, so if the Army provides facilities for adventure activities, the Bill probably would not apply. I emphasise the word "probably". That is the bad news. The good news is that regulations can always make it clear that, if the Army provides facilities for adventure activities, it does not need a licence. That is the nub of the matter—the licensing is the key, as I expect the hon. Member for Devonport will tell us.
I cannot be as unequivocal as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle would like, but it is clear that, in all likelihood, military installations would not be automatic candidates for the licensing regime specified in the Bill. I want to leave the door slightly ajar, for the reasons that I have given. We want to be satisfied, do we not, that there is no possibility of young people of school age being in any way vulnerable to anything that would expose them to an unacceptable level of danger?
If, as all my hon. Friends have suggested, during the consultation and regulation-making process, reassurances can be provided in relation to military facilities, I have no doubt that exclusion from the regulations would be entirely appropriate. I hope, however, that my hon. Friends will agree that we want that level of reassurance, despite everything that has been said about the expertise of the personnel, the instructors, and the relevance, or not, of the regulations, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is such a master.
I hope that the sequence of events that I have described, and the flavour of my comments will reassure my hon. Friends. Equally, however, I hope that they will agree that we should not shut the matter out by putting an explicit exclusion on the face of the Bill at this stage, especially given some of my hon. Friends' doubts about the amendments.
The amendment's wording would be sufficient to cover all relevant military or militarily related facilities—there should be no doubt about that. However, it is unnecessary to include it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle will accept the reassurances that I have tried to give today. Allowing a proper role for the consultation and regulation-making stage would be adequate. In the light of that, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment this morning.

Mr. Jamieson: I thank Conservative Members for their kind words of support for my Bill. I am pleased to see that a number of hon. Members who were unable to speak in Committee and on Second Reading are in the Chamber to support the Bill, because undoubtedly its strength lies in the strong cross-party support that it has in the House, and in the enormous support that it has outside among many organisations that are involved with the safety of young people.
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification of a number of points. I shall not attempt to repeat the arguments that he has so eloquently outlined. A number


of hon. Members said that we would not wish to act in haste after a tragedy. I think that it was the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) who said, rightly, that the Lyme bay tragedy occurred exactly two years ago this week. During that period, I have met the Department for Education and the Secretary of State for Education twice, once nearly two years ago, and much careful time and consideration has been given to legislation to assist the safety of children in activity centres.
I therefore reject the comment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that the Government may have rushed into this matter. They have had an opportunity to give full and proper consideration to the legislation. As the Minister said, we have in front of us not detailed provisions, but enabling legislation.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle tabled the two amendments. Of course we all accept his experience in the military, just as we accept the experience of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) as library monitor at Nottingham high school. He also made some useful comments about the amendments.
Amendment No. 2 would reduce the Bill's scope from the age of 18 to 17, so it would cover people aged 16 and under. I have listened to a number of arguments on that point. Just as I have had suggestions that the age may be lowered, I have had a considerable amount of correspondence from universities and higher education establishments suggesting that it should be raised. I have an almost equal balance of arguments from both sides. By putting the age at 17 and below, therefore, we may just have it about right.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle makes the point that people under the age of 18 are sometimes required to die for their country in the armed services, but I remind him that, equally, they cannot vote in elections, even for the hon. Gentleman, much as they may wish to do so; nor can they enter into a legal contract for a loan.
It is especially important that we identify people in an age group of immaturity and inexperience. We must protect them in particular. That is what the Bill seeks to do. A great difference exists between young people aged 17 and those aged 18. Those aged 17 are more likely to be in full-time education than those aged 18. Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman had excellent motives in tabling amendment No. 2, the Bill keeps the balance about right.
As the Minister said, we all have an ambition to anticipate what will come next in the legislation, the regulations and the legislation's next phase. Throughout Committee, hon. Members tabled amendments, and we had lengthy discussions about organisations that might be written in or out of the Bill. As the Minister said, a danger exists in putting too much detail in enabling legislation, lest we find later that we want to amend the primary legislation and that we have not got it right.
Comments have been made about the haste with which the Bill has been introduced. Two years of thought have been given to the Bill, but a further period of consultation will follow. Then there will be another period when the House can consider the detailed regulation that will come before it. Of course, that will have the full and proper scrutiny of the House, stage by stage.
At that time, hon. Members who have made valid points today about the armed services will have an opportunity to debate those regulations fully and properly, so the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle will have a further opportunity to return to the matter. What happens today will not close debate on it.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I would welcome clarification of what will happen at a later stage. I understand that the regulation comes back by way of a statutory instrument, which will be considered, presumably, by a Committee upstairs, and therefore not on the Floor of the House. The opportunity for the wide debate that the hon. Gentleman envisages may not arise.

Mr. Jamieson: Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, I am sure that the Department for Education will undertake wide consultation to ensure that all the bodies that have a proper and legitimate interest in the matter are consulted fully and properly on the regulations. Those regulations would then be brought, as other regulations regularly are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to the House.
In Committee, I expressed the view that a Committee upstairs was the proper place for full scrutiny of the statutory instruments. If hon. Members are concerned about matters contained in those statutory instruments, they should take the opportunity, perhaps unusually, to discuss them with more thoroughness and diligence than is usually the case.

Mr. Waterson: I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. We consider about 3,000 statutory instruments a year, and we are primarily concerned—sometimes I would it were other—with the form and the vires of the regulations. I cannot envisage the prospect of a discussion on this issue in the course of such scrutiny. Unless some way is found of debating the regulations on the Floor of the House, that discussion is a forlorn hope.

Mr. Jamieson: I do not have the hon. Gentleman's experience and I am grateful to him for bringing his experience to this debate. However, I have sat on Committees in which there has been a full and proper debate, and I should have thought it possible for that to occur in this case. As we are dealing with primary legislation, and considering the secondary legislation that will flow from it, I should have thought it eminently possible to have a full debate in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to explore and tease out of the Minister all the details that may be required.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the House so wishes, the statutory instrument can be taken on the Floor of the House anyway?

11 am

Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Should the House wish to have a fuller debate, it is possible for the statutory instrument to be taken on the Floor of the House. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle that the next phase will be given proper consideration. I believe that that aspect of the legislation should be given close consideration, so that we get it right and rule out those bodies and organisations that we wish to rule out, while ruling in most firmly those that we wish to rule in.
We have this morning debated matters related to the military. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that he would not want members of the Health and Safety Executive wandering around assault courses, but I am sure that he will accept that he would not expect young people on assault courses to be put at unnecessary risk. We expect the very highest standards of safety measures from the military when young people are involved. It would not be in the interests of any commanders to put their soldiers, sailors or airmen at unnecessary risk, especially those who are young, immature and inexperienced.
I draw an analogy with what I understand to be the position in schools. The Bill would not apply if a school undertook adventure activities led by teachers skilled in those activities. It would already be covered by the line of responsibility that runs from the teacher through the head teacher to the governors and, in most cases, to the local education authority. There is a chain of command and, as I understand it, safeguards exist because schools act in loco parentis.
I believe that the training of military personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence would fall into a similar category. There is a duty of care on the employer to the employee, and the Bill would not cover people employed by the military on active service.
As the Minister said, the grey area is whether those working in a part-time capacity and perhaps offering amateur services to the Air Training Corps and other cadet forces which successfully involve hundreds and thousands of children are or are not covered by the Bill. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) specifically mentioned the training of such personnel. Many civilian instructors are former military instructors and therefore of the very highest standard, so I should not necessarily draw a distinction between the two in terms of quality.

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is important to clarify what I said. I specifically said that some of the best—if not the best—civilian instructors were former service men and women.

Mr. Jamieson: I accept that, and I am glad that we agree on this point as well as on other matters.
I trust that, when we go through the consultation stage, we shall hear compelling arguments from the Army cadet forces and the Air Training Corps as to whether they should or should not come under the remit of the Bill. At that stage, many bodies will, quite properly, make a forceful case for why they should or should not do so.
To accept amendment No. 3 at this stage would be unnecessary, although I understand why the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle has, as the Minister said, raised a matter that has not been discussed previously. Now that he has raised it, I am sure that it will be given careful consideration in the consultation period, and when we reach the most important stage of setting out the fine detail of the regulations.

Mr. Leigh: In view of the assurances given by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and by my hon. Friend the Minister—in particular the Minister's assurance that this is simply an enabling Bill and that it is not the Government's intention to include military training in its ambit—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Merchant: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 22, after 'appeals', insert—
'(m) the minimum qualifications required by staff employed by persons providing facilities for adventure activities.'.

Mr. Merchant: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendment because it gives the House the opportunity to hold a short debate on qualifications. The matter was raised in passing in Committee. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) will know that I sought at various points in Committee to strengthen the Bill, and I hope that he appreciates my motives in doing so.
Amendment No. 8 deals with an important issue of principle—the standard of qualifications that instructors and others who work in activity centres should hold. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give more detail about his plans. I accept that putting a specific requirement may not be the best way to proceed, but I hope at least to tease out of the Minister his intentions in this regard.
I also accept that I have probably not drafted the amendment as well as I should have, as I omitted to include a reference to establishments that had been licensed or, alternatively, to state that qualifications should be part of the licence requirement. It is my intention that the amendment should apply only to those centres that have been formally licensed under the Bill.
The issue of qualifications was widely discussed in relation to the safety of activity centres and in connection with the Lyme bay tragedy. Indeed, the issue played a central part in investigations after that unfortunate event just over two years ago and was discussed at great length in the investigations of the Select Committee on Education. It was also discussed in Committee. The regulations should cover staff qualifications. The amendment stresses that by including them in the specific list of requirements.
The qualifications of staff at activity centres are a matter of long-standing concern. Children who attend activity centres are effectively placed in the hands of staff who may be very highly qualified but who, regrettably, in some cases, are wholly unqualified or who have only part qualifications, some of them inadequate. Although there are other causes of disaster and problems even when children are in the hands of fully trained staff, a mishap is far less likely to occur if the staff supervising and leading the activities know precisely what the risks are.
Qualifications should include full training in all aspects of safety, full training on equipment, how to use it and how it operates, full training in all emergency procedures and full training in the skills involved in looking after young people—what might be called the skills of leadership. Training in dealing with people in difficult situations is of prime importance. It is important for instructors to keep their head and to ensure that those around them do likewise because panic is often the greatest contributory factor to disaster. It makes the problem far worse.
I am not being over-dramatic in saying that training is at the core of the Bill. Most accidents and disasters do not stem from criminal intent. There is an outside chance that


a person who runs an activity centre deliberately runs it in a dangerous way. I would, however, be hard pressed to find a motive for that; it is extremely unlikely. The real problem is recklessness. Organisations may cut corners, believing that in so doing, they are not taking a serious risk.
Another problem is plain ignorance. When the Bill was in Committee, we were entertained by a long account of how the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) got into difficulties in a boat. The incident was described entertainingly, but there was a serious undertone. It is easy to take part in an activity with which one is not familiar and suddenly get into extreme difficulties. The problem stems from ignorance. If the instructors at a centre are not skilled, they may take their charges into areas of great risk simply because they do not realise what is going on. Trained people will not make that mistake. They know precisely what is at stake and they know how to handle it. Even if, under the Bill, regulations were introduced to provide for every potential problem, untrained staff might not know how to apply them properly. They might not even know that the regulations existed. Qualifications and training are important to uphold the regulations.
I accept that what I have described is a fringe problem. I accept that even today, without the Bill, in the vast majority of activity centres, staff are properly qualified. I am also aware of how strict activity centres have become in the past two years in ensuring that staff are properly qualified. We are, however, dealing with the fringe; so often, that is what legislation is about. It is important for qualifications and training to be stressed in the Bill.
Qualifications and training are in the interests of all. It is very much in the interests of the owners and operators to be able to show that there is full protection and that their centres have staff who are fully qualified. It is important that everyone can be reassured of that. Qualifications and training are also important for teachers, parents and local authorities. They are all involved and they need to have confidence and faith in the centres that they use and especially in the personnel and their qualifications.
After the Lyme bay tragedy, at the inquest and the subsequent trial, considerable reference was made to the fact that
the staff involved were wholly unqualified.
In a nutshell, that underlines the importance of having proper training and qualification standards.
According to the Select Committee on Education:
Some doubts have been expressed as to how far the Act
the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974—
extends to the competence of staff in relation to the safety of centres' clients.
The Act may well be deficient in ensuring that qualifications reach the highest standards.
The Select Committee, in referring to staff competence, said:
ACAC witnesses defined competence as including qualifications, experience and training. We expect that the criteria which are eventually set either in regulations, or by the licensing authority, will take account of all these attributes, rather than relying solely on technical qualifications.

The Select Committee widened the scope of training and stressed its importance. It also said that the licensing authority should give support to the providers of outdoor education in terms of qualification standards.
The Select Committee report put great stress on the importance of national vocational qualifications and on ensuring that they were available in all the necessary areas and activities. The Committee believed that NVQs played an important part in ensuring that standards were maintained.
The Select Committee especially stressed summer centres—part-time centres—because it was felt that they were less likely to have high standards for staff. The Committee said:
In assessing the competence of staff, the licensing authority should pay particular attention to centres where the seasonal pattern of employment is more likely to involve staff of a lower calibre than larger, full-time centres.
11.15 am
I draw attention to two important factors which strengthen my argument. My local authority, Bromley, which was keen that the Bill should be enacted, drew it to my attention and increased my interest in it. In a summary that the authority has sent me, it stresses:
Parents have the right to expect that when children go to centres they will be taught by qualified staff'.
The adventure and activity centres themselves have shown how significant the Bill is and how much importance they attach to it. It is noticeable that in all their circulars to schools, they put great stress on the qualifications and standards of instruction required for their staff. I have a circular from Devon and Dorset Adventure Holidays which lists the activities, sites and minimum instructor qualifications on their various adventure holidays. It goes into great detail. That stems partly from the criticisms after the Lyme bay tragedy and partly from the focusing of attention on qualifications. It is also a reaction to some of the previous malpractice.
Devon and Dorset Adventure Holidays is honest in admitting that it previously had problems, although it has none now. I do not suggest that the company now employs anyone other than the highest-qualified staff. However, the company says that some years ago, it employed a chief instructor who was with it for some time—

Mr. Jamieson: Who sent the hon. Gentleman the letter from Devon and Dorset Adventure Holidays?

Mr. Merchant: The letter was sent to me by a teacher. It is a circular letter which Devon and Dorset Adventure Holidays sent to group leaders and teachers in many schools. It is clearly a circular letter. I would rather not tell the House the teacher's name, not because there is anything confidential about the letter, but simply because when I was given this material, I did not ask the teacher's specific permission to quote from it. I feel that I should not reveal the teacher's name.

Mr. Jamieson: Has the hon. Gentleman had any direct communication with Devon and Dorset Adventure Holidays? If so, which member of that organisation has he had direct contact with? Is any member of that organisation mentioned on any of the correspondence? I do not want the hon. Gentleman to give away who the


teacher was. Can he, however, name the person from Devon and Dorset Adventure Holidays who has written the letter?

Mr. Merchant: Yes, with pleasure. The name at the bottom of the letter is Chris Reynard and there is a signature. I am taking the letter at face value and I have every reason to believe that it is accurate. If the hon. Gentleman has any difficulties with the letter, I would obviously be delighted to hear them. It seems to be a perfectly valid letter on letterhead. In any event, the reference to the instructor is merely illustrative of a practice that has been known to have occurred at other centres and one of the purposes of the Bill is to prevent any such lax standards.
The letter, which I was going to quote, claims that a previous chief instructor provided forged instructor certificates and was later found to be fraudulently qualifying staff. So long as such activity is found to be necessary or is carried out, there is a problem from which those involved in activities—children, teachers and schools—must be protected. If there is a clear and proper requirement for minimum qualifications, if those qualifications are known to be above board and if they are the result of a recognised scheme with proper validation, all concerned—operators, clients, schools and children—would be fully protected.
As I said, such protection is at the core of the Bill and that is why I stress it in the amendment. I hope that either my amendment will be accepted or that the promoter of the Bill the hon. Member for Devonport and my hon. Friend the Minister will give an assurance that the whole question of qualifications will be properly and thoroughly dealt with and included as an essential part of the working mechanisms of the regulations which will stem from the Bill.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham raises an absolutely key element which should be covered by the Bill and he is quite right to stress the importance and the central role that can and must be played by qualifications of staff. I need not repeat—indeed, I do not want to repeat—the many examples that have been given of the problems relating to inadequate qualifications and the like. There can be no difference between myself and my hon. Friend on that matter.
I point out to my hon. Friend, however, that clause 1(4)(b) says that regulations may make provisions to
any requirements relating to safety (whether applying to facilities for adventure activities or to other facilities) which must be satisfied by an applicant for a licence".
That phrase "any requirements relating to safety" is very broad. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) will no doubt confirm that a deliberately broad statement of the requirements relating to safety is envisaged to address the problems of safety in activity centres. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Bill as drafted would enable us to cover whatever matters may arise relating to safety. So the power, as it were, is already in the Bill.
Our next consideration is whether qualifications should in some way be singled out as being of exclusive or even primary importance. That need not and—probably—should not be the case, because under the phrase "requirements relating to safety" there will inevitably be a wide range of requirements, all of which are interlocking and important. I would include in a list, which is not

intended to be comprehensive but to give my hon. Friend a flavour of what I mean, training, competence, experience and management systems in addition to qualifications. If my hon. Friend thinks for a moment, he will realise that time and again we have heard examples of how a significant failure in any of those areas may lead to a shortfall in the delivery of effective safety measures.
Qualifications alone are not sufficient. They are necessary, but not sufficient. People may be qualified, yet their qualifications may be rather ancient, outdated and not strictly relevant. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult to identify simply through qualifications all necessary measures. Training is very closely related to qualifications, self-evidently, but may be required in addition to qualifications, competence is certainly relevant, experience, especially, is always relevant and the effectiveness of management systems and procedures—a factor which is often neglected—which have to be in place to supplement the straightforward qualifications that staff may have is vital. Again and again we have heard examples of how the failure of management systems or procedures have—probably—been the key element in giving rise to the sort of tragedies of which we are all too well aware.
Clause 1(4)(b) already contains ample provision to cover my hon. Friend's requirements and I hope that he will accept my contention that to single out qualifications may, in some senses, be almost counter-productive because it would imply somehow that the mere possession of qualifications by staff would be sufficient and that we could forget all other elements. Having given my hon. Friend assurances of what we shall have in mind as we enter the consultation process and shape up to making the regulations—qualifications are central, but the other factors are, too—I hope that he will be sufficiently satisfied and will not feel the need to press his amendment.

Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for tabling amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and for making his points. I know that he has great concern for his constituents and that he has contact with his local education authority. He, like so many of us here, is also concerned as a parent. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a parent because I came across his two children recently in the Strangers' Cafeteria. Unfortunately, when they espied me, thinking I was an old socialist, they scurried under the table for cover. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But once they were told that I was new Labour, they came out with smiles on their small countenances, they felt assured and they cooed. So, I know that the hon. Gentleman is very sympathetic to the Bill. Indeed, his carefully crafted amendments on report and in Committee have been extremely well received.
I remember the hon. Gentleman making a powerful and welcome speech on Second Reading. I noticed that at the beginning of his speech he said that he was
instinctively reticent about supporting extra regulation."—[Official Report, 27 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 630.]
I am sad to inform him that I am equally reticent about accepting his amendment. He can tell from my tone that, just as in Committee, he is heading for disappointment if he thinks that he has won us over on this matter.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, clause 1(4)(b) and, possibly, clause 1(4)(a) cover training and qualifications, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. In clause


1(4)(a), it is conceivable that a centre would be signing up for a licence to a code of practice. That code of practice would contain, if it were worthy, details relating to qualifications required by staff. As the Minister says, the qualifications in themselves are not a guarantee that children will be safe. A far more important issue is the management and culture of safety within the centre.
The Lyme bay tragedy occurred in relation to the St. Alban's centre, which had instructors who were qualified in canoeing. Sadly, they were not involved in that activity on that day, but were round the corner dinghy sailing. That was a management problem, not a problem of not having the staff to undertake the task. The amendment would be tautologous as the matters are already covered in the Bill.
11.30 am
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beckenham used in support of his arguments information from Devon and Dorset Holidays. The hon. Member for Beckenham clearly did not hear the Radio 4 programme, "Face the Facts", about three weeks ago. I can happily provide him with a tape of that programme so that he can listen to it.
I raised the subject on Second Reading. Mr. Chris Reynard was interviewed by the BBC in relation to the claims that he made in his brochure about his centre, particularly about the staff qualifications and the endorsements that he said he had received from various organisations. He states in his brochure that his was "voted the best centre". When asked by the BBC who had voted, the man lapsed into a period of Trappist silence and could not or would not answer the question. When pressed by the interviewer several times, Mr. Reynard was silent—he could not give the names of those who had voted his the best centre in Britain.
Mr. Reynard covers his literature with endorsements that he says that he has received from various organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. He quotes as supporting him people like Alan Cottle, the outdoor education adviser for Surrey. I believe that Mr. Dane Oliver is also quoted as supporting him. I believe that all those people have written sharp and pointed letters to Mr. Reynard saying that in no way were they supporting his organisation, particularly the poor, ill-thought-out scheme for giving people qualifications. That scheme was not recognised by anybody.
On the same programme, when Mr. Reynard was asked about who recognised the qualifications that he had given out, he again fell into silence. The broadcast is most interesting and anybody interested in any part of outdoor activities should listen to the tape. I strongly commend it as it is revealing. It illustrates why we need the Bill. There are people like Chris Reynard around, albeit in the minority. People exist who are prepared to use bogus safety claims and comments from other people out of context and without their permission to try to sell their product on the market. We need the Bill to provide protection from those people.
I ask the House to reject the amendment as the issue is adequately covered in the Bill.

Mr. Merchant: I am grateful for the various comments of the hon. Member for Devonport, not least his comments about my children. As a father, I am

concerned in a personal way, as well as being concerned for my constituents and their children. I want to ensure that anything in which my children participate, now or later in life, should be properly controlled and supervised.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I support his Bill. My reference on Second Reading to my natural instinct against regulation can be seen as a compliment to him and his Bill in that I nevertheless find it attractive and support it. I can also reassure the hon. Gentleman that, while it is true that my children hid under the table when they saw him because they thought he was an old-style socialist, they came out not because I told them that he was new Labour, but because I told them that he was the Bill's promoter. They were delighted to hear that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring at length to Devon and Dorset Holidays and Mr. Chris Reynard. He is obviously better informed than I am on that subject. I initially thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that the letter that I had received was not genuine and there was some forgery involved, in which case I intended to say that I had quoted from it in good faith, the teachers had given it to me in good faith, and we all believed that it was an accurate letter. I now realise that the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are even more problems attached to that organisation. Perhaps the qualifying remark that I made at the beginning of the quotation—that the holiday centre was now operating to the highest standards—was inaccurate. Obviously, it is not operating to such standards and the problems are worse than I suggested. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear and I fully share his concern.
I am reassured by what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister said about qualifications. I have achieved my objective by drawing attention to that subject and receiving the reassurances that I sought. I fully accept the comments of both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman that the qualifications themselves are not sufficient. I was not intending to suggest that they were, but was simply trying to stress one aspect. I accept, and always have done, that qualifications are merely a starting point—there must be good practice, good management and continued experience. I would not want to be party to anything that appeared to suggest that only qualifications were important.
I have succeeded in my main objective of drawing attention to the importance of qualifications and given the House the opportunity to discuss that subject. I have put the matter on record, which is important for the implementation of the legislation and the drawing up of regulations. I am satisfied that my main purpose has been achieved. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

OFFENCES

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.
It may seem churlish at this advanced stage to start tabling new amendments, but the fact that the Bill is widely welcomed—I very much congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on his initiative—does not mean that it should not be properly and thoroughly scrutinised. We have already had an interesting debate on the armed forces, which threw up a number of new ideas that need to be advanced.
I should declare an interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), I am the father of young children. They are currently much too young to participate in activities likely to be covered by the Bill, although the climbing frame at the back of our house fills me with dread every time I see it used. Only this morning, I handed over £1.50 to my eldest daughter's school as she has just won a certificate for swimming 25 m—{HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The process is beginning. I spoke earlier about the formative experience that I had on the Brecon Beacons during an exercise known as arduous training—arduous it certainly was. We all have our own memories and experiences of such activities.
Amendment No. 9 deals with penalties. It aims to give the hon. Member for Devonport the opportunity to disclose the precise rationale behind his thinking on penalties as it appears in the Bill. In the light of the appalling tragedy at Lyme bay and the other distressing occurrences that we have heard about today, there will inevitably be a temptation to say that the penalties should be as high as possible and that no penalty can he high enough.
It is important to remember that the penalties proposed in the Bill have no direct relationship with penalties awarded in courts in circumstances such as the Lyme bay disaster, where gross negligence and manslaughter were involved. Such cases, and the terrible incident raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) involving Hayley Hadfield, are dealt with under the existing legal system.
The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 also has a bearing on the Bill. Although there is a strong temptation to whack on heavy penalties, we are considering a regime that presupposes no loss of life or personal injury but relates solely to failure to comply with regulations.

Mr. Waterson: Has my hon. Friend reflected on the prospects of double jeopardy? In a tragedy such as Lyme bay, it is feasible that a person could be pursued under the regulations and be convicted of manslaughter, yet also face claims for civil damages. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill's provisions should bear some relationship to the likely penalty under a criminal action?

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and I am not, so I defer to his knowledge. He makes a good point, to which I shall return later.
Amendment No. 9 relates to anything for which a licence is required being otherwise than in accordance with that licence. The penalties envisaged by the Bill are a prison sentence of up to two years, an unquantified fine

or both. It makes no reference to the defence that an operator had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the conditions of a licence.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and my hon. Friend the Minister said that detailed implementation would be best left to the framing of the legislation. The existence of such a defence would be an important safeguard against the effect of the regulations being unduly harsh.
It is perfectly conceivable—notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport about rogue operators, who undoubtedly exist—that an owner or operator could be inadvertently let down by a member of his or her staff acting deliberately or incompetently, despite the owner or operator having made every effort to comply with the licence. I should welcome clarification of how my hon. Friend the Minister sees the legislation working in those circumstances. It seems that the Bill does not allow for mitigating circumstances and that the offence will be absolute. I doubt whether that was the promoter's intention, and I should welcome his thoughts.
Amendment No. 9 proposes a maximum prison sentence of one year instead of two years. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. The promoter said that my hon. Friend would have made a good hanging judge in days gone by and that 10 years was excessive. I share that view. We are dealing with a breach of regulations, not with an offence that might be indictable under criminal law. Does the hon. Member for Devonport feel that a maximum prison sentence of one year would be an insufficient deterrent against non-compliance?
One finds in any walk of life a minority of rogue operators who attempt to breach regulations and to run cowboy enterprises, but the majority of activity centre operators are responsible and conscientious people. The prospect of a prison sentence of almost any duration would be a sufficient deterrent to encourage such people to comply with regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) may recall that the managing director of Active Learning and Leisure—the company involved in the Lyme bay tragedy—was convicted of manslaughter and given a three-year custodial sentence. Four young people lost their lives in that accident. In the light of that sentence, we must consider the penalties envisaged by the Bill for a technical breach of regulations. In relative terms, a maximum sentence of two years for a breach alone may seem a little harsh.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On Second Reading, it was said that 300 activity centres—about 10 per cent. of the total—may try to flout regulations even though ways of satisfying them are evident. In those circumstances, and given the risk of injury or death for young people, should not it be left to the courts to decide a maximum sentence of up to two years? Should not a judge decide the appropriate sentence?

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. The question is whether a rogue operator would be deterred by a one-year sentence as much as by a two-year sentence. The individual concerned in the Lyme bay disaster, having been convicted of gross negligence and


manslaughter, was sent down for three years. That has a bearing on the relative weight that we should give to a technical breach of regulations.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and I have known each other a number of years, but I do not agree with the purpose of his amendment. I hope that I may persuade him to reconsider.
The Bill's promoter rightly emphasised the fact that it has support in all parts of the House, and we should make it clear that we mean business. In the context of sentences, it is for Parliament to fix maximums within which the courts can operate. It is not for us to speculate on appropriate sentences in particular cases. It is our duty to set a maximum and for the courts to set a tariff. The Court of Appeal often issues guidelines on the tariff for certain types of offence.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) that a new view should be taken of deterrence and that halving a potential sentence acts as a more effective deterrent? Would the hon. Gentleman propagate that view with the Home Secretary?

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down another route; if I were to follow it, I am sure that the Chair would have something to say to me. Perhaps I can go this far: there is a more general problem with our criminal justice system. I refer to the system of tariffs. If, as they are, the penalties at the top of the range are limited, that fact tends to exert downward pressure on tariffs for other crimes such as burglary, and then on down to offences of the sort that we are considering today. As long as a life sentence can mean an average 12 years in prison, and as long as we do not have the death penalty at the top of the range, I can foresee problems with sentences for some of the more questionable types of manslaughter—they will tend to come low down the scale. I secured an Adjournment debate on that very subject a while ago. A constituent of mine was attacked without provocation and died as a result. His attacker got away with a very light prison sentence for manslaughter.
Presumably for this, as for other offences, a sort of tariff system will emerge, with the imprimatur of the Court of Appeal, to guide the courts on sentencing policy within the range between one year and two years, depending on the circumstances. We should also remember that the amendment relates only to offences taken on indictment. Under the framework of this Bill, I would expect the vast majority of cases to come before magistrates, where they can be dealt with summarily—presumably by a fine, which would be the end of the matter.
We should also bear it in mind that we are talking about what could be a wide range of offences. We are discussing a regulatory offence, but that can range from a trivial infringement of the regulations, warranting a modest fine in a magistrates court, right the way through to enormous breaches of the regulations that might result in death or serious injury. We must therefore allow the courts a wide range of penalties.
In the case of a gross breach or flouting of the regulations, the offence would almost certainly be taken on indictment, so the full rigour of a two-year sentence should be available. In the ordinary way the court will have to consider not only the circumstances of offences but the track record—possibly the criminal record—under these or other regulations of the accused.
Let us consider the example of a person with a long history of running an activity centre badly, recklessly, negligently or sloppily. If he is brought up for an infringement that did not in itself cause serious injury or death but which was one of a series of offences against the same regulations, that is another good reason for keeping a more serious penalty.
There should be a wide range of penalties, from fines to imprisonment. I can see the problem of what lawyers call double jeopardy—in the case of the Lyme bay disaster, triple jeopardy. It was clear that there was a lack of knowledge of local weather conditions, the equipment was wrong, there was inadequate liaison with the coastguard service and the rescue operation was mounted late and was based on information much of which proved to be inaccurate. Almost everything that could go wrong in that tragic incident went wrong. Rightly, the manager of the St. Albans activity centre and the managing director of Active Learning and Leisure were charged with manslaughter. In December 1994 the latter was convicted of manslaughter through gross negligence and given a custodial sentence of three years.
What followed represented an interesting legal development. The company was found guilty of corporate manslaughter and fined £60,000. The charges against the manager of the centre were, I believe, dismissed. It is important to remember that the company was the first in English legal history to be convicted of homicide; and, according to the Library briefing, its managing director was the first director to be given an immediate custodial sentence for a manslaughter conviction arising from the operation of a business. When I was a student—and, indeed, until the issue arose in cases such as the Marchioness—it was always assumed that a company could never commit manslaughter because, unlike a person, it was not capable of the mens rea—the intent—necessary to commit that sort of offence.
There are three possible results of a tragic incident such as this one. First, there is a claim for civil damages. In this case, I am not aware of whether the families concerned have entered claims against the individuals or company involved. Secondly, there is the prospect of a criminal action for manslaughter being brought against those who are to blame—persons or corporate persons. Thirdly, the regulations we are discussing in this debate may come into play.
I strongly believe that we should leave it to the courts to express the community's outrage—or in lesser cases, its concern—at certain incidents. The courts should be able to deal not just with cases involving a death but with cases of serious injury or of children being placed in danger, even though they may mercifully have escaped injury or death. There are also other remedies; the courts should take account of what else is happening at the same time. They cannot deal with the regulations in a vacuum if a criminal action for manslaughter is also being brought. Ultimately, however, it is for the courts to take into


account all the factors that I have mentioned, which also explain why I cannot support my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I listened carefully to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I managed to follow most of them, but like many of my hon. Friends I am not a lawyer. Much of the time I consider that an advantage; but I think that I speak for most people when I say that, in the context of regulations involving children, we need the toughest deterrents to turn people away from courses of action likely to put young people in danger. That is why I cannot agree with the amendment, or with the arguments in its favour advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). I agree with him on most occasions, but not this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne mentioned that this company was the first to be found guilty of corporate manslaughter—that is significant. Had the right legislation not been put in place some years ago, that important step forward would not have been possible.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: In view of my hon. Friend's chilling remarks about my modest amendment I should be grateful if he told us why he believes that two years is the right length of prison sentence.

Mr. Banks: It is a question of balance. In this instance I think that the hon. Member for Devonport has got it about right. Progress has been made, and it should not be tampered with by the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East referred to an individual being sentenced to three years for manslaughter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the courts must be the arbiters of these matters. They must decide on the merits of the case. If such a case comes to court, the jury will no doubt decide whether a company or individuals are guilty of the offence. The judge will have a number of options at his disposal. The amendment is unnecessary and two years is about right. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) went slightly over the top in suggesting a penalty of 10 years. As I have said, I think that two years is about right. Those outside this place would not expect us to reduce the penalty from two years to one year.
12 noon
The amendment reminds me of the debates that took place on bail bandits. The House will be pleased to know that I shall not be going down that avenue this afternoon. All too often some of my hon. Friends sought to tinker too much with a measure that was making excellent progress. We do not want the amendment before us to be agreed to. We want to be able to make progress. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that two years represents the right balance.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) has had a bit of a battering from my hon. Friends: next, we shall be hearing from Opposition Members about a Tory split on penalties.

Mr. Jamieson: I missed that.

Mr. Forth: I am sure that that will not stop the hon. Gentleman making the assertion.
Clause 2(3)(a) provides that regulations under subsection (1)
may provide defences to be available in proceedings for an offence".
The provision was inserted in Committee for exactly the reasons that have been advanced. I hope that that covers the point.
We are back in familiar territory. It is right for the House to seek to determine the appropriate penalty for a particular offence. As our expert colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), has said—he was muttering about sending me a bill, and I hope that on this occasion he might waive his fee for the advice that he has made available to the House—we are dealing with terms-not-exceeding provisions to give the courts discretion.
It is a well-known phenomenon that the term set out in the proposed legislation will be seen by the courts as a guideline. Sentences will tend to be set in response to the level at which the guideline is set. Some of us may regret that penalties all too rarely meet the maximum—I for one would like to see the maximum penalty exercised more often by the courts—but signs are given to the courts that reflect the penalties that we believe should be imposed.
In setting penalties levels, I suspect that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) decided to pitch them at about the same levels as are set for other health and safety offences. To take a more prosaic governmental view, we think it important that there should be consistency in setting penalties for broadly similar offences. It is important that the Bill is broadly consistent with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
All in all, we have penalties that are much related to those that are provided for in the 1974 Act. When set against the offences with which the Bill seeks to deal, they are about right. It is my instinct to leave the wording, the levels and the penalties much as they are, and certainly not to reduce them. As some of my colleagues wanted dramatically to increase the penalties when they were considered in Committee, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) thinks that they are a little excessive, I suspect that probably they are about right. I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Jamieson: One of the curious consequences of the Bill is the number of alliances that it has created across the Chamber and the number of differences that it has highlighted. I was far too cautious, of course, to mention a split in the Tory ranks; the Minister has kindly highlighted it for me. I heard the scurry as journalists left the Gallery to change their headlines for tomorrow. It may be that this moment will be looked upon in future as the turning point for the Government. It may be seen as the critical moment—the split too far that caused the Government's demise.
The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) seeks to reduce the penalty from two years to one year. There was an interesting debate on the matter in Committee, the report of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman read carefully before tabling his amendment. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—I call him the hanging judge—wanted the penalty to be


increased to 10 years, which I found rather excessive. Such a penalty is comparable to that which faces someone who has caused the death of another person.
When I hear that some hon. Members think that the penalty should be increased and then hear that others think that it should be reduced, I suspect that two years is about right. It is worth reflecting on the sort of offence that would attract a sentence of two years' imprisonment. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, bringing his expert legal knowledge to the Chamber, it would be for the courts to decide the length of the sentence. The offence would be, as is set out in clause 2(1)(b)(i),
to make a statement to the licensing authority … knowing it to be false
and in (ii), to
recklessly … make a statement to the licensing authority … which is false in a material particular.
If a centre, in the process of being licensed, recklessly made statements that it knew to be false, I would say that such conduct should attract a sentence of possibly up to two years, depending on the severity of the offence. There are some who might think that such an offence should attract an even more severe sentence. My original view was that such conduct should attract a slightly longer prison sentence. We are seeking to deal with someone who undertakes recklessly to try to mislead the licensing authority about matters that relate directly to children's safety.
In Committee, however, we meshed more closely the Bill with the 1974 Act. That was an important function of consideration in Committee and it now represents the strength of the Bill. The Bill is now aligned with other legislation on health and safety. As the Minister has said, the 1974 Act makes provisions in similar circumstances for a two-year sentence. I justify the provision on those grounds although my natural instinct is for more severe punishment for someone who tries to mislead the licensing authority.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a wonderful thing to unite the House but I did not intend to unite it so solidly against me. I tabled a probing amendment, and the issues raised by it have been well and truly probed extremely thoroughly. I am unrepentant for moving it. It is important to consider whether the proposed penalties are appropriate. We have had the opportunity to do so, and I thank the hon. Member for Devonport and my hon. Friend the Minister for their responses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 36, leave out from 'instrument;' to 'and' in line 37.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 40, after

'Commission', insert organisations representative of the owners of activity centres'.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate today—brief, because I have a slight back pain, which I have had for the past 20-odd years. I would not be surprised if it was due to that wretched weekend that I spent in Crickhowell, which has been referred to time and again in the House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on his success in the ballot, and on introducing this most important piece of legislation, which has all-party support. I look forward to it getting on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
I suppose that many of us, with the grace of God, look at the tragedy at Lyme bay and say that it could have been our children or those of constituents of ours. Therefore, I believe that we should take measures to protect members of the public. But at the same time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, we do not wish to over-penalise small businesses in this country that operate activity centres.
I pay tribute to the dedication of the people—young people in particular—who work in those centres, the vast majority of whom are decent and law-abiding and would not step outside any area if they thought that they were endangering the lives of young people. I believe that the Bill is in the best interests of those legitimate activity centres. I understand that, following the tragedy at Lyme Bay, the custom of those activity centres has dropped off quite dramatically because of the fear of many people that they would not be able to judge the standards of activity centres around the country. The Bill will correct that for the first time. It will be welcomed by many people who operate such centres.
I have tabled this probing amendment because I want to ensure clarity of purpose about the Bill. I believe it important that we attract as many young people as we can to activity centres. The River Ribble flows through my constituency, and regularly on a Sunday morning I see young people canoeing up and down the river, enjoying themselves. I want to ensure that there is not a similar tragedy in my constituency. We need to get young people involved in such activities. It was mentioned on Second Reading that too many young people are stuck in front of television sets or computers. With the Internet coming in, goodness knows how much daylight many young people will see in future.
I am not certain what constitutes an activity centre, but one area that may be covered by the amendment is the ski centre on Pendle hill in my constituency, which runs between Clitheroe and Sabden. Many young people use it to good effect. I am not certain whether it would be regulated by the Bill. Many groups—we all have them—in our constituencies, such as girl guides, cubs, beavers and scouts, use those activity centres, but also go on events that they have organised themselves. I am not too sure whether those groups or youth clubs will be covered.
My amendment is trying to ensure clarity for all sorts of groups that may exist within the term "activity centre". Clause 3(2) says that regulations under section 1 or 2
(a) shall be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument;
(b) may make different provisions for different cases
I want absolute clarity as to what the provisions would be and the different cases that we are talking about. As we have stated time and again, we do not wish to see


over-regulation for the sake of it. We do not wish to see regulations heaped on for the sake of it. It has been stated that we can introduce legislation to protect young people, but irrespective of whatever legislation we introduce, we will not able to legislate against people injuring or killing themselves. We are seeking in the Bill to minimise the risk of them doing that.
12.15 pm
I wish it to be made absolutely clear that people who operate those activity centres will not suddenly—particularly when they have made massive investments in their business and taken all precautions to ensure that their operation is run as safely as it can be—have new rules and regulations heaped on them, regulations which they may not deem appropriate, which may involve costs. I see in the Bill that transitional provisions may be introduced over a time. Therefore, the costs, whether in training or additional equipment, could be spread over a period.
Having said that, smaller organisations might suddenly be asked to abide by our requirements but may not be able to raise the money to fulfil their obligations and may go out of business. The ratio of instructors to pupils in some of the smaller centres might be greater than in some of the bigger centres, but I am sure that the standards vary throughout the country.
I am asking for clarity on the provision. Are we seeing the thin end of the wedge, with no regard paid to the costs that may be incurred by activity centres as a result of new rules and regulations? Such costs will be passed on to the people using those centres. I do not want to see those centres used only by the youngsters of wealthy parents.
Many parents in this country have to scrimp and save to ensure that their youngsters are able to take part in the activities that their friends take part in. It would be dreadful to put those parents in a position in which they would have to say to their children, "I'm terribly sorry, but you cannot go on that pursuit, because we can't afford it." We must ensure that any rules we introduce are framed in a sensitive and common-sense manner, and that they will not heap additional costs on to parents and the activity centres.
I am also concerned at the possibility of what I call the clipboard mentality, which we have seen in this country time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, and others, have talked about deregulation, and we are in a deregulatory mood in many respects, but that does not mean that we are opposed to introducing new rules and regulations when they are absolutely necessary. I want to ensure that a cost-benefit analysis is done on any new rules regulations that are suggested for those activity centres. We must ensure that they are not over-burdensome, and that they are well within the costs of the activity centres.
I am also conscious that there might be different rules and regulations for different activity centres, some of which might be in public ownership, and some in private ownership. I want to get away from that completely. Surely we want to set a minimum set of standards that are clear for everybody at the outset, so that they will all know what they are to do to comply with the regulations. They should not be open to interpretation by officers in various parts of the country who interpret the rules and regulations more rigidly than officers who may use a

light-touch interpretation. Some officers will move from one part of the country to another, taking with them the baggage that they have built up.
We must give the activity centres the ability to plan long term. The last thing they want, especially in the light of the difficulties of small businesses in raising capital for all sorts of projects, is to be presented with a Bill which will make it extremely difficult for them to raise money from the banks. The banks will say that they are not certain that the project for which the money is required will increase the number of people coming to the activity centre, and will not lend the money.
As I have said, the centres need to be able to plan long-term, and their prices must be kept as competitive as possible, because they are competing with many other activities, outdoor and indoor. I ask the Minister to address the needs of the activity centres and the flexibility he needs to be given to meet any future changes that we have not been able properly to address in debate on the Bill. The activity centres must be aware of a clarity of purpose, so that they know exactly where they stand.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) speaks with such eloquence that one might be tempted into believing that behind his plea for deregulation lies a deregulatory amendment. But he seeks to remove flexibility from the Bill, making it more rigid and probably more onerous to the operators of activity centres than would otherwise be the case. I trust that the House will not be taken in by the charm and blandishments of my hon. Friend. I am afraid that, in my case, they fell on deaf ears.
I should like to speak to my amendment, which is No. 11. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been numerous calls for the regulatory burden to be kept as light as possible—the light touch. There is a danger that, with the best intentions in the world—there can be few better intentions than to try to legislate to ensure that tragedies such as that which occurred at Lyme bay will never happen again—we shall end up with regulations that are too onerous and which work against the interests of young people by making it more difficult and costly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has mentioned, for them to go on excellent activity holidays.
I make no apology for returning to the theme of regulation with amendment No.11. Despite the assurances of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that the Bill will not impose undue restrictions on the operations of activity centres which would deny young people the opportunity to take sensible risks, there is genuine concern among those in the field that that may happen.
It is not the purpose of the Bill to draw up detailed regulations: it merely enables the Minister to draw up regulations at a later stage and to deal with them by way of the statutory instrument procedure. The Bill is sensible, and I stress again that I welcome it.
However, I remind the Minister that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said, the Bill is no part of the Government's deregulation initiative. It represents an inescapable extension of regulatory control. When presenting the statutory instrument which details and enacts the regulations, it will be for the Minister to ensure that they are not unduly burdensome or will hinder the enjoyment or experience of young people in participating in sports activities.
Clause 3(3) requires the Secretary of State to consult only
the Health and Safety Commission and such other persons (if any) as he considers it appropriate to consult.
I do not like that "(if any)", because it gives the impression, deliberately or otherwise, that there may not be other people whom my right hon. Friend may see fit to consult before making his regulations. That would be a pity, but I shall let that point pass.
I do not doubt that the Health and Safety Commission is well qualified to provide expert advice on health and safety issues relevant to the regulations. But that is not the only organisation the Secretary of State should be required to consult in framing the regulations.
If a balance between health and safety and the personal development of young people through participation in adventurous activities is to be maintained, surely the latter deserves as much consideration as the former. That is why the amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of the owners of activity centres before setting the regulations in stone.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the work that has already been done by the Activity Centre Advisory Committee working with the Council for Outdoor Education, Training and Recreation and the British Activity Holiday Association. I understand that all those bodies accept the need for statutory systems of regulation and that they have made that clear to the hon. Member for Devonport. In the absence of statutory regulation, they have over the past two years been developing their own voluntary body, and they have made it clear that they stand ready to offer the Secretary of State advice and the benefit of first-hand knowledge in the running of activity centres for young people when he is drawing up the regulations that are enabled by the Bill.
I understand that considerable dialogue has already been established between the Health and Safety Commission and those bodies. I am pleased to hear that that dialogue is taking place, but there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the people on whom the burden of the new regulations will fall. The chairman of the British Activity Holidays Association has expressed concern to me over that.
Although the BAHA is enthusiastic about the Bill, it remains understandably anxious about numerous matters of detail which are likely to arise from it and which will need to be considered by the Secretary of State as he moves towards implementing his regulations.
I tabled the amendment in the interests of balance, which we have heard so much about during the passage of the Bill, and in the interests of the light touch which we would all wish to see. It is reasonable that there should be a requirement for my hon. Friend the Minister to consult the owners of activity centres as well as those whose business it is to ensure the safety of the public.
After all, once the Bill becomes an Act—as I hope it will shortly—it will, like any other piece of legislation, require the good faith and support of those to whom it is directed for it to be an effective law. It is surely right that the views of those on whom the regulations will fall are taken fully into account as the regulations are developed.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to the need for flexibility, and I agree. I do not, however, concur with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is a passionate deregulator in industry, business and commerce. I do not believe that his amendment will make a substantial improvement to the Bill.
I am rather more persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East, although I would not go so far as to say that he should not seriously consider withdrawing the amendment that he has tabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, who eloquently described the activities in his constituency—which I know particularly well—is seeking to do the opposite of deregulating. If the amendment were to form part of the Bill, it would take away the flexibility which should be inherent in it. The flexibility on which there has been agreement across the Floor of the House and which formed part of the foundation behind the Bill would be removed.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley in a number of other respects. He is entirely right to say that the same regulations should apply to both private and public sector activity centres. He is also entirely right to say that there should be no regional variation in standards in the running of activity centres, no matter what part of the UK they are situated in. It is important that standards are maintained, and regulations will follow the guidance as a result of the Bill.
But it is important to ensure that there is the maximum flexibility, and that would be inhibited if amendment No. 4 were agreed to. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will, having listened to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—who I hope will have something sensible to say about the matter—will withdraw the amendment.
I referred to regional variations and to public and private sector regulations. When we seek to legislate for the safety of young people who are canoeing, abseiling or taking part in any other activity, it is important that we achieve the same safety measures and provisions, irrespective of the activity. To remove the part of the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is suggesting be removed would be inappropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East was entirely right to say that the British Activity Holiday Association is anxious about a number of items contained in the Bill, and I very much hope that, as we make further progress in the debate, some of the issues which my hon. Friend raised will be taken on board.

Mr. Forth: This has been an intriguing and important debate, because it has enabled us to focus on the direction which many of us would like the Bill to take. The debate has been particularly useful, because it has allowed us to concentrate on a key phrase in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has done us a service by drawing attention to clause 3(2)(b), which refers to the fact that the regulations to be made may make different provisions for different cases. He speculated on what the differences might be.
I do not often get the opportunity to use the notes so helpfully provided by the excellent officials who give me such superb support at the Department for Education. On this occasion, to repay them for their past kindness I shall read their notes—precisely because, in their usual way, they have accurately anticipated the sort of points that have been made. I shall do my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley the honour of using the notes, because they exactly answer the points he made.
There are a number of circumstances in which we can envisage requiring the sort of flexibility that my hon. Friend mentioned. First, regulations may need to provide for the possibility that licences should contain different conditions for different types of activity. It may be that, following consultation, we would want the regulations to specify that, for example, instructors leading rock climbing or canoeing expeditions should have leadership certificates. We can imagine other similar possibilities.
Secondly, consultation may lead us to conclude that providers should have licences classified as provisional until they are inspected, after which they might then receive full licences if appropriate. That provision, which would be removed if my hon. Friend's amendment was accepted, would allow different sorts of conditions to be imposed on provisional licences and full licences.
We may wish to provide regulations for a sliding scale of fees, so that small businesses are not unnecessarily burdened. That is exactly the point about which my hon. Friend was concerned, and I understand why. It is a flexibility that we want to include in the Bill.
The House will recognise immediately not only the prescience of the officials in the Department in anticipating the points raised by my hon. Friend, but the fact that their notes anticipate the sort of conditions in which we may want to make different provision for different cases—not in the way that my hon. Friend feared, but to provide exactly the flexibility that he said he wanted. That flexibility is included for good reason, and it would be applied in the sort of areas and in the sort of ways that I have mentioned, not in the ways that my hon. Friend feared.
I come now to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). I am aware that he has carefully scrutinised the Committee proceedings, although he did not have the privilege and joy of serving on it. He will be aware that the point raised in his amendment has been mused upon previously. I hope that I will be able to persuade him, as I was previously able to persuade the Committee, that to include individual organisations in the Bill to ensure that they are consulted might be tempting, but not necessarily productive.
There is no question but that the sort of organisations that my hon. Friend has in mind will be fully consulted during the consultative process. I am happy to give that undertaking now. After all, it is in our interests that they should be consulted. If we want to bring before the House a set of regulations that are well formed, well thought-out, relevant and effective, we can do no other than to consult all the relevant and interested parties and bodies to ensure that we know their views, can use their expertise and, as far as possible, ensure that the regulations that we frame are relevant, workable and practical.
It follows that I want to ensure that consultations cover the widest possible spectrum of organisations and individuals. The Department has increasingly come to value that process as a method of operation. We have used

it with the special needs code of practice and we are using it now with the development of policy for under-fives' education. It is not only a vital democratic process: it is valuable in the formation of policy, to ensure that those most immediately involved in an activity that we intend to regulate are consulted fully in advance. There can be no question but that that is case.
Having said all that, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, in some people's eyes, to single out a particular group or body, no matter how important they may be, might give them a dubious or spurious primacy in the matter.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: That was precisely my point in relation to the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. Forth: The commission has a unique role, in that it is the body statutorily charged with ensuring health and safety as far as is possible. The other bodies involved have an important but different role. They would be consulted and listened to—they are, of course, active players and participants—but they do not have the statutory role that the commission and, with it, the executive will continue to have in acting to ensure that the highest possible standards of safety apply in every case.
For that reason, it is correct that the Bill singles out that unique, central and pivotal role for the Health and Safety Commission, but that it does not succumb to the temptation of seeking to provide a list, either exclusive or inclusive, or a list of priority consultees.
It is better that we leave it completely open, with the proviso, which I hope my hon. Friend will accept, that there can be no question but that the organisations that he has mentioned will be consulted. He may want to write to me to seek a further assurance if that is not sufficient, and to remind us, if we need reminding when it comes to the consultation, that those bodies should be fully consulted, as I have assured him they will be.

Mr. Jamieson: In the debate, I have been an interested observer, watching the split among Conservative Members elevate into open warfare. Being split eminently suits them for the Back Benches, but being in open warfare qualifies them for the Cabinet.
Amendment No. 4 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). He may have misunderstood the part of the Bill to which it relates. There is no question that commercial centres should be dealt with differently from local education authority centres. It is proper that the measure, if and when it is enacted, should fall equally on both organisations. That was fully expected and explained on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Bill's intention was to ensure that charges for smaller centres could be made on a different scale from charges for larger organisations, and that those scales should reflect more the amount of usage and turnover of the centre, rather than its physical size.
The hon. Gentleman referred to charges on small centres and to the burden that is caused. In introducing the legislation, I did not intend to over-burden small organisations. We want them to thrive, and we want to encourage them to achieve further success.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the evidence given to the Select Committee on Education by Ms Rawlinson-Plant, who is a committee member of the British Activities Holiday Association. She


referred to the small centre with which she is involved—the Mill on the Brue centre, which sounds like something out of Thomas Hardy. She said that the centre took only 50 people at a time. But when I asked her what its turnover was, she said that it was about £250,000 a year. I asked her what she thought was a reasonable accreditation fee to pay. She astonished the Select Committee by saying that she thought a reasonable fee would be £5,000 per year. I asked her to repeat it, just in case a zero had been misplaced, and she repeated it as a reasonable fee to pay. That came from a person who is running a small centre.
It would be unreasonable for a small centre to pay that sum. Ultimately, we look forward to a fee that will be considerably less than £5,000. I was nevertheless surprised to hear someone from a small centre, in evidence to a Select Committee, give that sum as the fee that it was prepared to pay for accreditation. It is an indication of how strongly many of those bodies feel about the accreditation scheme and its commercial value to them. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, many centres have suffered a reduction in trade because of the lack of confidence caused partly by the Lyme bay tragedy and partly by other events that have occurred since.
12.45 pm
Amendment No. 11 was tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). It is unnecessary to include in the Bill a set of organisations which represents specifically the providers of activities. I recall the Minister of State, in many of his illustrious contributions to debates in the Committee stage of what became the Education Act 1993, saying that too much weight should not be given to producer interests, and that the emphasis should be on consumer interests.
As I said to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), we must tread with caution with a body such as BAHA, which, as the amendment suggests, is an organisation
representative of the owners of activity centres.
BAHA does not represent a substantial number of centres. It represents possibly 120 or 130 out of 3,000. I accept that Mr. Martin Hudson has made many changes to BAHA in the past two years—lest anyone think that I am criticising him, I believe that many of those changes have been for the good.
The reason why I counsel caution with the amendment is that, when the body was set up in 1986, the intention was to carry out a voluntary accreditation system. If the hon. Member for Surrey, East looks again at BAHA's evidence to the Select Committee, and especially at the record of my interrogation of Mr. Martin Hudson, he will see that I asked about the voluntary accreditation scheme and how it had been conducted in the late 1980s.
An inspector, Mr. Higginson, who I believe has a senior post in BAHA, visited hundreds of centres, and was paid to carry out the scheme. At the same time, he was running the Rock Park centre, which was found wanting by the Consumers Association and the Welsh tourist board, which declined to accredit it under its system.
Before we give too much prominence to such bodies and mention them specifically in the Bill, we should consider just how authentic they are and what their

essential responsibility is for the safety of children, because that is what the Bill is about—it is not about protecting the providers of activities but about protecting the safety of those who use them. On those grounds, and for those reasons so clearly outlined by the Minister, I counsel the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the advice and guidance given by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) about clause 3(2)(b), which has given it clarity of purpose. My fear was evident. The thrust of the Government's policies is deregulatory, and the last thing I wanted to do was to reverse that.
Due regard should be given to the costs of any changes that might have to be made, because they will have to be passed on to the customers of activity centres which we want to be used even more. I certainly want the Minister to have flexibility, but he must understand that, although I have every confidence in him and consider him to be a fellow traveller in this matter, in future someone else might be in a position to make a different interpretation of clause 3(2)(b).
However, in view of the Minister's assurances that my fears are ungrounded, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Like everyone here today, I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. We look forward to it going through this stage speedily and receiving Royal Assent.
I was quite taken by the late conversion of so many hon. Members to a lively interest in the Bill. I was pleased to see the hon. Members for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), for Southport (Mr. Banks), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and others, tabling amendments and speaking on them today. However, I fear that many of the amendments were not even serious probing amendments, but were constructed to eat up valuable time in the House.
It should be put on record that today we have had another, more sophisticated attempt to ensure that the Transport of Animals for Slaughter Bill does not get the hearing that it deserves. That is especially sad because no one anticipated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is the Third Reading of the Activity Centres (Young Person's Safety) Bill. It is not a debate on other legislation or on tactics related to other legislation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the amendments selected today are fully in order.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am suitably chastised, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having said that, I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). He said that this was a sad day in terms of his views on regulation and deregulation. For parents throughout the country, it is a happy day indeed. It is especially a happy day for the Walker, Dunne, Langley and Sayer families who lost children in Lyme bay. The


Bill cannot, of course, be any compensation for their terrible loss, but they can take some succour from the fact that the Bill has reached its Third Reading. We hope that, as a result of the Bill, there will not be such losses in future.
I was taken by the concern for military traditions shown by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, as reflected in amendment No. 3. Such traditions do not strike my fancy; I have never had a particular engagement with uniforms, boots and all things military. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which was endorsed by the Minister, that the issue had, in all fairness, not been raised earlier.
So that I cannot be considered to have extended, even inadvertently, discussion of the Bill on Third Reading, I intend to be extremely brief. We very much welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. Yet again, I place on record the fact that credit must be given to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) who has conducted such a model campaign during the Bill's various stages. The Bill is a credit to him, a credit to the families concerned and a credit to all who have children as their primary concern. As I said, I am not especially concerned about what happens to military tradition. I am not really concerned about what happens in terms of regulation and deregulation in the context of this Bill. Like hon. Members on, I hope, both sides, my concern is for children, especially when they are at risk.
In these peculiar political times, the Labour party is more the party of deregulation than the Conservative party in many respects. The one question I have to ask myself is whether, with a Labour Government, the Bill would have been introduced without a strong campaign having been mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. I believe that it would have been.
I congratulate the Minister on his productive and constructive attitude at each stage. The simple reason for his attitude is that he has reflected public opinion, and the sense of public outrage about what happened in Lyme bay and the potential for future disasters. I welcome everything that the Minister has said. I deplore the fact that—shall we say—time has been wasted in considering the Bill, for whatever reason. On that note, I hope that others will follow my model of brevity and speedily complete the Third Reading.

Mr. Merchant: I shall take nothing but the briefest of time to speak in favour of giving the Bill a Third Reading. I am sure that all hon. Members, including Labour Members, will recognise that I have had—and displayed—a genuine interest in the Bill from the very beginning. Sadly, for some, this Bill will come too late, but it will substantially prevent previous abuses which left open avoidable levels of risk.
I am not generally in favour of regulation, especially unnecessary regulation, but there is a strong argument for the regulation that the Bill will enforce. It sets up a framework. On a constitutional note, I slightly regret the fact that so much is left to statutory instrument, but I recognise—and have been convinced—that it is necessary in this case. There will be a proper licensing, inspection and complaints procedure. The Bill will neither harm business nor the activities in its scope. Rather, it will

encourage such activities by making them clearly more reliable, by answering doubts and by helping those who run the centres to run them with greater confidence. It will also encourage parents, teachers and those who take part to do so without the worry that they have had in the past few years.
For those reasons, I believe that the Bill is of benefit to all those involved. It will help the education of our children and help to protect them and I delighted to see it reach this stage.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I had not originally proposed to catch your eye on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do so briefly to make one particularly important point. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Devonport, especially for the way in which he wrote to right hon. and hon. Members from all parties and kept us informed on the progress of his Bill.
A number of us who spoke to amendments on Report in the House this morning did not table our own amendments and were in our places to support the hon. Gentleman and the important measures which lie behind the Bill. I have no doubt whatever that if there had been any time wasting, as was suggested earlier, the Bill would not have made such progress. All of us on the Conservative Benches, in tandem with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), wish the Bill best speed.

Mr. Forth: I join the sentiments which have been expressed and congratulate the hon. Member for Devonport on his wisdom and sagacity in bringing before the House a Bill to provide a framework for activity centres. It is an enabling measure and it will be followed by consultation. The regulations which will flow from it will be very much based on that process of consultation, as we emphasised over and over again. It will put in place a licensing regime with inspection and penalties to seek to ensure as far as is possible within the law and given human frailty that any centre which provides activities for young people under 18 will be as safe as we can make it, but will be consistent with providing the sense of adventure which we all believe is so important to the development of young people.
Scrutiny in Committee and on Report has demonstrated that the Bill achieves all the provisions required. I wish it well. I am sure that the hon. Member for Devonport knows that the Government, my Department and any others involved will seek to ensure that his Bill, once it has passed all its parliamentary stages, will be put into effect with speed and the thoroughness that it deserves to ensure that, when it finally takes effect, it will be balanced, effective and fair. That is the Government's intention and I am sure that it will meet the hon. Gentleman's approval.

Mr. Jamieson: I rise at the close of the debate with a sense of humility and pleasure at having been able to steer the Bill through the House. I am humble because the House has given me the time to introduce a measure which is of great importance to my constituents and to people throughout the country. I have also been humbled


by my ability to persuade so many people to support the Bill, not just in the House, but in the much wider community outside in the country. I have been pleased that it has received so much cross-party support. I am also humbled to have been able to participate in that rare event—an Opposition Back Bencher steering a Bill through the House in tandem with the Government and with their support.
It has been a pleasure to represent my constituents and to reflect the much wider interest throughout the country. I have been pleased to be able to extract from an appalling disaster, which happened almost two years ago today, some hope for the future. I cannot pretend but that the Bill was initiated by the tragedy at Lyme bay. I cannot conceal how deeply saddened I am that four lives had to be lost before action was triggered. I cannot claim the high moral ground and pretend that I was campaigning for the measure before that event. That tragedy at Lyme bay triggered the need for the Bill and triggered cross-party support for it. That tragedy has led to a period of careful consideration and, now, to measures of plain common sense, which anyone can see are right.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank one or two people who have assisted me with the Bill. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Education for his support in getting the Bill through the House. Had it not been for his support, we would not be participating in the Third Reading debate today. I thank him for his contribution in getting the Bill through the House. I also thank the silent ones behind him, his civil servants, who have been so helpful in seeing the Bill through Parliament. The Minister did them credit today by reading out the brief that they had written for him—and excellent it was too.
I should also like to pay tribute, as I did on Second Reading, to the parents who lost their children at Lyme bay. The Walkers, Dunnes, Sayers and Langleys have suffered what can only be described as the unimaginable loss of a child. None of us can understand what those people have gone through unless we have been through it ourselves. But we all know what it is like to lose loved ones, and how deeply and profoundly it affects people when they undergo such a tragedy. It is significant that the parents used their loss not merely for internal grief, great though that may have been, but as a springboard to campaign for other people's children. That must have been the most noble position for anyone to take in the circumstances.
The Bill has received widespread support from local authorities, individual schools, sporting organisations,

commercial centres that run activities and youth organisations, not least the scouts and the Young Men's Christian Association, as well as many other organisations. I have had considerable support from all the teachers' professional organisations, particularly the National Union of Teachers, which has played a large part. I am particularly grateful to Jonathan Hopkins and Elaine Derbyshire from the NUT, who helped enormously in the Bill's preparation and helped me to steer it through the House.
There are many unsung heroes behind the scenes, but I should like to thank one other person. I have the rare opportunity to thank one of my staff, a young man called Alex Ross, who has been with me since I was elected, nearly three years ago. He came straight from university and, not long after that, the Lyme bay tragedy occurred. He has helped me to deal with the distressed parents with enormous maturity, sensitivity and good sense well beyond his years. He, too, has shown quiet concern in ensuring that the Bill proceeds through Parliament. His tenacity behind the scenes has helped to get the Bill to where it is today.
The measure states that children involved in hazardous activities should have a framework of safety guidance that must be adhered to. It distinguishes between activities that are challenging and exciting and those that are dangerous and pose a risk to life. The Bill puts in place a system of proper inspection of activity centres, and when it is enacted, I hope that it will restore public confidence in that industry, which has been rocked by tragedy. As the regulations are implemented and the accreditation scheme begins to work, I hope that parents and teachers will have renewed confidence. All of us want to encourage young people to undertake such activities, for reasons clearly spelt out in our debates.
The Bill will assist good centres, which are in the majority, and support their commercial ventures and activities. It will send a clear message to centres that cut corners and compromise safety that either they join the scheme or go out of business. I hope that few centres will go out of business because of the Bill and that those that cut corners, as revealed by the Health and Safety Executive report, will bring themselves up to standard.
It was said many times in debate that the Bill cannot eliminate all risk, but it will permit challenging and adventurous activity for children in an environment that ensures that safety comes first.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Transport of Animals for Slaughter Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Bill Olner: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My Bill could not be more timely, but I said those words six to eight weeks ago. Unfortunately, when my Bill was originally due to receive its Second Reading, it was in a long queue of private Members' Bills and there was not time to debate it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on his Bill, which commands respect in all parts of the House. It won broad agreement on Second Reading and in Committee, and there was support for amendments tabled today. Perhaps a little brevity, however, would have been in order, to allow more time to debate my Bill, which is also extremely important. I regret that the Government wheeled in the praetorian guard to speak at length on amendments to my hon. Friend's Bill.
My Bill is timely, given the widespread public feeling about the transport of animals for slaughter that even the media and the Government recognise. We have seen violence and even tragic loss of life as emotions have heightened, with confrontation replacing peaceful protest. That is a sad reflection on the fact that, as democratic representatives, we do not always arrange our time to ensure that the public's views are made known and acted upon. I do not support violent confrontation but condemn it, yet the House must realise that the transport of animals for slaughter has been an issue for many years and frustration has grown. To many of the sincere people who take part in these demonstrations, violence is anathema.
During Agriculture questions yesterday, the Minister was asked how many items of correspondence she had received on this matter. The answer was: more than 90,000. That is not to say that only 90,000 people are worried. I have been given petitions with more than 800 names on them. Far more people are concerned than have written letters to the Ministry. That goes to show the depth of public feeling about the live transportation of animals for slaughter.
I pay tribute at this point to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I thank it for the help that it has given me with drafting this Bill since I was lucky enough to be drawn in the ballot. We all owe the RSPCA a debt of gratitude for the work of its undercover inspectors. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have graphically illustrated severe instances of animal cruelty. One has only to think of the RSPCA video which revealed the appalling conditions in Greek abattoirs.
It is no good closing our eyes and saying that that has nothing to do with us, because the animals of this country are superbly reared by our farmers. Although we may not have a legal obligation, we certainly have a moral obligation to ensure that animals are not transported to such appalling conditions.
The Bill is an attempt to resolve the issue and to give temporary respite to animals involved in the live transport trade and to calves destined for veal crates.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with legislating

unilaterally in this country is that it means ignoring what may happen between the time when the animals reach the other side of the channel and their arrival at the Greek abattoirs? Surely the answer is to achieve Europe-wide agreed rules on the transportation of animals, in addition to dealing with the conditions in the Greek abattoirs.

Mr. Olner: I shall come on to that point.
The Bill expresses my constituents' anger and upset, which have been reflected in the floods of letters and petitions arriving on my desk during the campaign. I am sure that other hon. Members have been similarly deluged, and I am grateful for the fact that the Bill enjoys cross-party sponsorship.
Even before my election to this place in 1992 I used to take a keen interest in the welfare of all animals. Two aspects of the live transportation of animals have always struck me as ludicrous. We have all been affected by the frequent scenes of animals suffering which have brought long-distance live transportation into disrepute. It seems mad to ship live animals to somewhere 1,000 miles away and then to kill them within minutes of unloading them at their journey's end. That is not just my view. I have received a letter from the National Association of Women's Clubs—not exactly a far left organisation of the type often mentioned as taking an interest in animal welfare and rights. It describes horrific instances of pigs and sheep being transported for long hours in cramped, dirty conditions without food or water. The association stresses the fact that journeys lasting 30 hours are commonplace for sheep and cattle, and that journeys to Italian abattoirs last for as long as 45 hours.
I have been supplied with the results of a referendum conducted by Worcestershire Referendum Society. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Minister of State, Department for Education, is no longer in his place, as he was for consideration of the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill. I was given the information by the referendum society after appearing on a television programme in the midlands, during which there was a discussion on the transportation of live animals. The information is the result of a referendum that was held in the Worcestershire area in 1993. People were asked whether they wished the overseas transportation of live animals for slaughter to cease.
The referendum revealed that 88.8 per cent. of those who participated thought that the trade should cease; only 6.3 per cent. were in favour of it continuing. I suggest that, two years on, public opinion has hardened towards the disgraceful trade involving the transportation of live animals and the conditions that surround it.
Like many hon. Members, I am aware of the closure of slaughterhouses. There was such a closure in my constituency, which led to the loss of jobs, trade and expertise. The slaughterhouse had only recently been modernised. It was forced to close not because the company had insufficient money to upgrade it to enable it to obtain the various licences to meet European Community law—thousands of pounds had been invested in the place and it fulfilled all the conditions that it had to meet to enable it to stay open—but, sadly, because of the increase in the exportation of live sheep from this country to the rest of Europe. The closure was not the result of operating conditions or a failure to meet licensing standards.
We are exporting animals in some awful conditions and we are exporting jobs. Slaughterhouse work is being undertaken in the rest of Europe but not in this country. It is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members who wish to have meetings should hold them outside the Chamber.

Mr. Olner: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for bringing the praetorian guard to order. I appreciate that.
Why do more than 2 million animals leave the United Kingdom each year on the most horrendous and unnecessary journey of their lives when they could be transported to a local slaughterhouse, humanely killed and transported abroad as carcase? That is the humane and efficient way of exporting animals.
I am not a softy. I do not think that many people in the UK are softies, but all of us are decent and we respect the rights of animals. We respect the fact that animals can suffer pain. Most of us would rightly speak out against inflicting pain upon them. We know that live animals bruise easily and that carcases do not. We know also that the cost of transporting carcases is a quarter of the cost involved in transporting live animals. The live animals that are transported are subject to severe stress. I feel strongly that our farmers receive a raw deal in some respects. Their animal husbandry is second to none worldwide. The quality of the product is severely damaged when it travels miles across Europe, only to meet its death at the end. We are not giving our farmers the opportunity to market their excellent products in the best possible way.
I do not think that we will ever see the Danes shipping animals to this country crammed in the back of a lorry from Denmark. All their products arrive properly packaged and prepared, and it is a very marketable commodity. I see no reason why our meat trade should not be conducted in the same manner.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I entirely agree that we would all like to see more meat purchased in carcase form rather than on the hoof, but if we were to ban live exports would not abattoirs on the continent simply import live animals from other countries, which have far worse standards of animal welfare than us? Should not we therefore seek a European-wide improvement of animal welfare regulations?

Mr. Olner: If people on the continent buy United Kingdom meat because of its quality, I do not think that a substitute for it would be transported from other parts of eastern Europe, where the quality may not be as good. We have to be a little better in the way in which we sell our meat products in carcase form instead of on the hoof.
The nature of the market has been known for years; it was known before the single market was introduced. The European Union has had the task of agreeing rules that will operate in all member states to promote and protect those animals. There has been a great deal of frustration at the fact that the discussions on the details of the rules began shortly after I was elected in 1992. Yet, to date, no agreement has been reached and the misery continues.
In some respects, we have gone too far on what we would be prepared to accept as maximum journey times. We started from a low point, and in trying to secure an all-European agreement we have gradually increased the hours to such an extent that we cannot go any further. We have reached an impasse. The Bill says that we have waited far too long for European-wide regulations to be introduced.
The Bill will ban the export of animals for slaughter until such time as Europe has rules in operation to protect them. If, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food claims, the Agriculture Council reaches a conclusion in two weeks time, setting tough new rules to be implemented quickly to protect animals from unnecessary suffering, part of the purpose of the Bill will have been achieved. But if, as I believe, European Ministers cobble together an appalling compromise, with a long delay before introduction, questionable enforcement procedures and, above all, continued long journeys, my Bill will be a signal to Europe that we will not let the suffering continue.
Some people might ask what precedent there is for imposing such a ban. I know that Conservative Members have argued that we cannot unilaterally apply such a ban. Perhaps we have to take a leaf out of our European colleagues' book. The German Parliament announced that it would ban British beef. As we saw when Spanish trawlers were going to amass in the Irish box, a tough stand by one country can have a profound effect and can assist Europe in sorting out matters quickly. That is the impetus that my Bill will bring.
The Bill recognises a growing impatience in our society with this sordid trade and recognises that the public, the ferry companies and even many farmers are disgusted by the treatment of these animals. It was the ferry companies' decision to ban lorries carrying sheep and pigs and other animals that created the hiatus, at which point the people who conduct the trade started to move to other areas such as Brightlingsea where perhaps they thought their trade could continue unrecognised and unseen. The trade was being carried out on ordinary ferries that are used by the public and the suffering of the animals on board turned people from using ferries.
The Bill also recognises that if Europe is paralysed and cannot act, Britain should. It seeks to prevent the exploitation of calves destined for intensive systems that are illegal in the UK. Before I was elected to the House, Parliament set a standard for the veal crate system and individual pens. If Parliament recognised that veal crates were wrong and banned them, it is illogical for us to export calves to be subjected to those self-same conditions abroad. We should act immediately to ban that trade. If our fellow Europeans want to argue with that, let them. The trade is wrong and barbaric and it should be stopped.
I know—the whole House probably does so—that to some extent the trade affects my constituency because planes carrying animals overfly it. People in the Coventry area are concerned that the veal crate trade, with all its associated problems, is continuing at Coventry airport. I hope that the Minister will take a separate note of that and look at the condition of some of those young calves when they arrive at Coventry airport, where they stay before they are loaded on to an aircraft, and at whether proper lairage facilities are provided. I am advised that some of the young calves are taken from their suckling mothers at


an extremely early age and are not in a condition or of an age to feed themselves properly. That adds to the misery of the trade.
The issue is not purely one of law but of political will. If the Government believe that EU law prevents them from taking action the Minister should attempt to negotiate for Britain the right to prohibit live exports. There is a precedent for that because for many years Britain has had a measure banning the export of horses for slaughter. That shows that the Government and Parliament can, if they wish, act to protect the rights of animals.
The British public wish to have a ban on such exports and that is what the Bill would achieve. It would also attract not only cross-party but widespread public support.

Mr. Michael Stephen: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on his good fortune in securing a place in the ballot? As the Member for Shoreham—one of the ports used for the export of livestock—I am proud to support the Bill from the Conservative Benches, and to be a co-sponsor of it. Like the hon. Gentleman, I made it clear before I came to the House of Commons that I was against the inhumane export of live animals. Since becoming a Member, I have sponsored early-day motion 318 and have supported early-day motions 21 and 1654. I also supported the Shoreham Against Live Exports petition promoted by Compassion in World Farming.
I must make it clear at the outset that the Bill is not an attack on British farmers, who have a record second to none in the world for the care of animals. I can understand that British farmers might feel penalised on account of lower standards of animal welfare in other countries, in particular, the use of veal crates. I myself have protested to the ambassadors of France and Holland against the use of veal crates in those countries.
Britain has led the way in animal welfare. We have banned veal crates in our country, and we have imposed strict animal transport standards. On 23 January, the Government introduced new legislation to make it an offence to depart from a veterinary-approved transport plan, not only in this country but on the continent. The Government have been making strenuous efforts in the Council of Agriculture Ministers to bring European animal welfare standards up to a level that British people consider acceptable.
I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give a report on the latest state of affairs in the Council of Ministers, and on the great efforts which she and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been making in that connection. I would also ask her to give the House a report on the efforts which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been making to encourage British farmers to have their produce processed in the United Kingdom, rather than exported. I am sure that all Members agree that it is far better for British meat, rather than British animals, to be exported.
We must also draw the attention of some of our European partners to the practice of importing live British animals, killing them in a foreign country and marketing them as though they were meat produced in that country. That not only distorts the market but, in my opinion, is a

fraudulent practice. The Government are well aware of the issues, as are most Members, but we cannot say that about our continental colleagues. I wish that Compassion in World Farming, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others would put more pressure on the legislatures of other countries and on the European Commission.

Mr. Olner: I appreciate the help and assistance of the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for being a sponsor of the Bill. Is he aware that the RSPCA has run advertising campaigns in France to try to bring about a greater perception of animal welfare issues in that country?

Mr. Stephen: I was aware of that, and that is all to the good. I would still like to see more pressure being brought to bear on our continental colleagues.

Mr. John Whittingdale: My constituency is a few miles from Brightlingsea where many of my constituents are protesting, just as my hon. Friend's constituents are protesting at Shoreham. Does he agree that our constituents would be better protesting to the Governments of other countries in Europe, rather than in this country where standards are higher?

Mr. Stephen: That is so, but many of our constituents do not have the financial resources to protest in other countries. It is fair to say, however, that the animal welfare organisations have millions of pounds at their disposal and could, if they wished, subsidise some people who might wish to protest on the continent.
I ask the House to give its full support to the efforts which my right hon. Friend the Minister is making in Europe, and I encourage all our constituents to put their full support behind him. There has been an unfair attack on my right hon. Friend. He and his family have owned a farm for many generations. There is a public service rule which requires Ministers to relinquish control of all assets which might cause a conflict of interest, and my right hon. Friend did so. The public cannot have it both ways. They cannot then hold my right hon. Friend responsible if something happens in relation to his farm which they do not like.
Efforts in Europe will take time. Rome was not built in a day, and European legislation takes time. Therefore, not only do I support this Bill, but I recently supported a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) which would have imposed a unilateral ban on the export of animals until such time as European rules had been brought up to our standards. I was disappointed by the attitude of the Liberal Democrat party towards that Bill. Its rural affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), said quite clearly that his party was not in favour of a ban on animal exports. Indeed, he called the protesters "naive and hypocritical".
I was sorry that no Second Reading was given to that Bill and at the time I raised a point of order with Mr. Deputy Speaker asking him to make more time available. The press reporting of the debate was, however, grossly distorted. The Bill was not talked out by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who spoke for only 23 minutes—hardly of filibuster proportions—nor was it talked out by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who spoke for just 16 minutes, most of which was taken up by interruptions. Nor was it talked out by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who could have continued


speaking until 2.30 pm, but actually sat down at 2.22 pm. That left sufficient time for the Bill to be moved and voted upon, had that been the will of the House.
In fact, the Bill was blocked by the use of a procedural device by hon. Members representing rural communities who considered the Bill to be against the interests of their constituents. It is a device that Opposition Members frequently use and I doubt whether any hon. Member, from any party, would wish to withdraw from Back Benchers the long-established rights that they hold in this House in relation to private Members' Bills.
I very much regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham had his house invaded and damaged. I do not agree with his view—my constituents have a different interest from his—but he is as much entitled to fight in this House for the interests of his constituents as I am to fight for the interests of mine. I hope that if there is any further attempt to intimidate a Member of the House, Madam Speaker will take the matter very seriously and make it clear that the persons responsible will be severely punished. I hope also that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will make it clear that whatever the issue may be, violence and intimidation will not be allowed to succeed in our democratic country. No matter how important any particular issue might be, none is more important than the rule of law and our democratic way of life.
Because it will take time to change European law, I believe that the Government should introduce their own a Bill to impose a unilateral ban on the export of animals. In the meantime, a court has decided that the port of Shoreham has no legal right to refuse animal exports. Back Benchers can support or introduce any Bill they like and I am proud to support this one. However, I understand that Governments must act on legal advice and I know that the Government have taken the best legal advice available. I also know that they have been advised on the provisions of the treaty of Rome—which, whether we like it or not, was accepted by the British people in a referendum in 1975.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that she will tell us whether the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill—and if not, why not. If that is the case will she, in particular, explain to the House why, having considered article 36, she thinks that we could not take advantage of its provisions.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I say to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) that I am not a member of any praetorian guard. I am here because I represent one of the largest livestock-producing constituencies in the country.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) for his remarks. I did not object to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) simply because I am in some way in favour of animal cruelty; I did so to look after the interests of the many farmers and hill farmers in my constituency who would have been seriously damaged had that Bill been passed.
It is not the job of the House always to go with public opinion. I appreciate that there has been an enormous weight of opinion against the export of animals because

the public do not see the difficulties and the nuances of unilaterally banning the trade. It is sometimes necessary for Members of Parliament to stand up against that weight of public opinion, to do something that they believe is right, and to try to achieve better animal welfare across the European Community, which I think is the Government's objective; it is certainly my objective.
There are one or two flaws in the Bill of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. He wants to achieve, as I and most hon. Members want to achieve, a reduction in the live export of animals. As he rightly said, it is nonsensical that we export live animals and not carcases because, obviously, slaughtering animals in this country is not only more humane but, practically, increases jobs and employment in the meat processing industry, which we are exporting to France and to other European countries.
However, a difficulty exists. To have meat and butchery of sufficient quality, we must invest vastly more in modern, up-to-date, multi-million pound slaughterhouses. Such things cost a great deal of money. The proper function of those slaughterhouses, of which there will be far fewer, requires the transporting of animals to them and a throughput of animals to make them economic. That is why animals are transported around the countryside.
Not least, later in the season, as the grass-growing season changes, a slaughterhouse in Nuneaton or in that region must buy lambs, for instance, from Scotland and north England. That is why animals are transported. That is the problem when Labour Members attack the Government over their slaughterhouse policy. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to achieve high-quality slaughterhouses that can process meat in the way that modern supermarkets demand.
In the old days, everyone used to eat joints of meat. It was no problem if slaughterhouses were unhygienic or inefficient in some manner because meat was sold for roasts, was put into an oven and cooked. Today, meat is sold as a meat product. It is frozen and chilled and hygiene is vastly more important.

Mr. Olner: How would the hon. Gentleman explain the closure of a slaughterhouse in my constituency? Many thousands of pounds have been invested in it, and it is relatively fully automated, yet it closed because it processed only sheep and the sheep trade went to France.

Mr. Atkinson: I have no knowledge of the circumstances of that slaughterhouse. I am aware that, in the United Kingdom, there is a problem of overcapacity in the slaughtering industry. Only some slaughterhouses will meet modern hygiene regulations. Those are not silly, nonsensical European regulations. As I explained earlier, they are necessary because of people's changing dietary pattern and the different ways in which they are buying food. That is why higher degrees of hygiene are needed.
As I explained, Labour Members state in their policy document that they want an eight-hour limit on the transportation of animals in the UK—well, they want that limit everywhere. If that were the position, it would be impossible to shift livestock from my constituency in north Northumberland to the west country or to south England. That would be prohibited unless animals were off-loaded, kept for a couple of days and then reloaded, which we consider to be much worse for animals than transporting them for a reasonable length of time.
Of the 2 million head of sheep that are transported alive out of the country, 80 per cent. go to north-western France—to the Loire, the Vendée, Nantes, Brittany and Normandy. They travel a comparatively short distance. They also go to Belgium and Holland. A few go to Germany. My hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the vast majority of sheep that are transported from this country reach their destination in Europe within 15 hours of setting off from the UK.
The problem is that, when the port of Dover took the unilateral decision not to accept ships carrying livestock, and when the two ferry companies, P and 0 and Stena Sealink, made the decision not to carry the livestock, the best port in the UK, with the most humane transport and the best layering facilities, was closed to exporters, so they were forced to consider Brightlingsea and the port in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham. Those ports would involve the animals in longer sea crossings than would have been the case if they had used Dover.
The United Kingdom is not sitting back and merely reacting to circumstances because the British farming community and the Meat and Livestock Commission have long been trying to get more of our meet exported not on the hook, as we say, but preferably pre-packed for French supermarkets. The commission has been working on that for a number of years.
The export of live sheep to France increased substantially between 1990 and 1993, mainly because the number of sheep available in France declined. Many sheep farmers in the south of France went out of business and the big modern slaughterhouses in north-west France were short of animals to slaughter.
One factor that we hope to change through marketing is that the French housewife still prefers to buys meat stamped "French", a fact mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). It is bizarre that in France one can buy "French" lamb which, only a few weeks previously, was gambolling around on a hill in Northumberland. The same is true of Scottish beef, although cattle are less likely to gambol as they are too large. It is a curious anomaly under the trade description legislation.
The Meat and Livestock Commission is making a great effort to increase the sale of our products abroad, especially in French supermarkets. The French housewife wants our quality, and our lamb is cheaper than French lamb. For a number of years, the commission has been running shows and exhibitions around Europe with considerable success.
We must move slowly but surely. As the necessity for live exports declines, we can replace the meat that is currently exported on the hoof with meat that is exported on the hook. I urge the hon. Member for Nuneaton and the public to be patient. A unilateral decision would simply drag down farming incomes, especially those of the hill farmers who are not involved in the veal trade but who produce naturally reared sheep and beef. Their incomes will decline as more meat has to be absorbed on the United Kingdom market. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the public to be patient—the trade in live animals will go, but it takes time and understanding, not a unilateral decision.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on promoting the Bill and the House on allowing us to have what I hope will be an even-tempered and reasonable debate on a very emotive issue. I am not the best person to lecture the House on even temper in relation to such an issue, but it is right that, when something is being discussed extensively outside, we should discuss it ourselves. I welcome the opportunity to do so.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a thoughtful speech. Of course, I understand his constituency interest and he is clearly serving his constituents well. I was not completely convinced by his philosophy that sometimes we have to resist public opinion—I should not have thought that this was one of those issues on which such resistance was wise or desirable—but I assure him that I should not be interested in seeing the income of his hill farmers decline if this country were to introduce a unilateral ban on the export of live animals. Public opinion must also face that fact.
One cannot say, "I am going to exercise my liberal conscience, and damn the consequences for someone else's salary or pay packet." I should certainly be prepared to put my hand in my pocket—once I have removed that of the Chancellor—to compensate farmers who might suffer. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has considered those consequences, and the public should do the same. Given the strength of public opinion about the transportation of live animals, I feel as confident as I do about anything that the public would be prepared to foot the bill and ensure that our farmers did not lose out.
I am very open about the fact that I am a vegetarian. It is a pity that we have to kill any animals for food and, like the hon. Member for Hexham and others, I would prefer meat to be exported on the hook rather than on the hoof, if it has to be exported at all.
I give credit to farmers in this country. I believe that our standards of animal husbandry are probably higher than those of any other country; they are certainly among the highest. It is clear from footage produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by Compassion in World Farming that the transport of animals from eastern European countries, such as Poland, Albania and Romania, is disgusting and obscene. I am not saying that British farmers behave like that; I know that this country is at the top of the league.
However, I am not interested in saying just that we are not as bad as other countries. I want this country to be the very best. I want us to set the highest possible standards so that we can be an example to the rest of the world. I see no reason why we should not do that. We could do that within the European Union. Spain, Greece and Italy are not far behind eastern European countries in terms of the lack of standards they apply to animal husbandry. It is right for us to call ourselves a nation of animal lovers. There are many animal lovers in the House, on both sides. However, there are still too many people who ill-treat animals. That is a matter of deep regret.
I accept, as has been said, that we need to try to get international agreement. In an ideal world, international agreement is the best agreement. However, progress is clearly very slow. It is because of the strength of public


opinion that Ministers are now showing a greater sense of urgency. Ministers may say that I am doing them an injustice. It is, however, noticeable that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food responded swiftly, following pressure from the National Farmers Union, from farmers generally and from meat exporters, when people exercised their freedom of choice by saying to the ferry companies that they were not prepared to travel on their ferries if animals destined for slaughter on the continent were being kept in the cargo hold. That was an amazing and highly successful demonstration of people power; consumers exercised their muscle.
The anger that followed was understandable. Consumers had done something and it was claimed that there had been a great victory for those who opposed the live transportation of animals. Suddenly, alternative outlets for transportation were opened. Coventry airport, Shoreham and Brightlingsea came into play for the first time. The anger was understandable. I felt angry. People thought that they had won, but found that they suddenly had yet another battle. They had to carry on winning time after time. The anger then started to spill over. Some of it was a little unfortunate, but for the most part, the people demonstrating, as hon. Members who have spoken so far have acknowledged, were not from rent-a-mob. Many were people who had never been on a demonstration before.
I probably get more letters each year on animal welfare issues than any other hon. Member. As I have said time and again, many of the letters start with the words, "As a life-long Conservative voter". Many of the people protesting, perhaps for the first time, are Tory voters. If nothing else does, that should interest Conservative Members. I know that many Conservative Members are interested in the issue, but I also know that votes can often concentrate the mind. It is worth remembering that we are talking about people who have never been on a demonstration before and who consider themselves to be good supporters of the Conservative party, in so far as there are any left these days.

Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not a party political issue in the traditional sense? Does he accept that there are as many Conservative supporters as there are Labour supporters demonstrating?

Mr. Banks: I would go further. There are probably more Conservative supporters in the Shoreham area than there are Labour supporters. Although the evidence is only anecdotal, that is the impression I get. It is not a party political issue. People often tend to think—I do not mean hon. Members present in the Chamber—that anyone on a demonstration is in the pay of Moscow. It is not like that. It is time that some of the less aware Conservative Members realised that there are a lot of their own supporters out there. I realise that I am overdoing the point, but I stress it because many Conservative Members still do not seem to have grasped it.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton and others, I think that the Government must take the initiative. I have heard Ministers say that they have taken the best legal advice under article 36. I always say that the best legal advice is usually that with which one agrees

in the end and what one wants. Lawyers come in many guises and if people do not get the advice that they want, I say go and buy another lawyer. It is an arguable point.
The law is uncertain in this area of animal transportation and slaughter. European Court judgments are only really developing now. The precedents are not there as they are in British law, so it is worth testing the judgments. All that we are saying to the Government is why not go for it, prohibit the export of live animals for slaughter and then let someone challenge it in the European Court.
If the Government's initial advice turns out to be correct and a unilateral ban is overturned, at least the Government can say, "Well, we did exactly what we were asked to do by Members of Parliament of all parties and by constituents and we have been turned over." Why should not the Government put themselves in the firing line at this point? They say that they know what is going to happen. Nobody knows for certain what would happen if the issue went to the European Court.
I am quite sure that if the ban on export of horses for slaughter were tested in the European Court, it would be overturned. No one has tested it. Why anticipate a battle which may never have to be joined? Why do not the Government go for it under article 36? I am no lawyer, but I would be quite happy, on the basis of article 36 as I understand it, to mount a defence of the Government's position.
I also draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 893, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), which is signed by members of all parties. It suggests that the Government should press to reclassify animals as sentient creatures at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. If we had been able to do that before, we would not have been involved in this argument now because we would have been able to apply a range of animal welfare legislation and standards to the export of animals.
During Agriculture questions on Thursday, the Parliamentary Secretary said that she had received 90,000 items of correspondence. That is a formidable array of public opinion and shows the degree of public concern. Of course I accept that the trade is lawful, but the Parliamentary Secretary and others must understand that so many people in this country find it unacceptable. Those people have a right to demonstrate against the law and, indeed, if they challenge that law, they will have to take the consequences. People feel very strongly.
Many people who are out demonstrating are prepared to go to gaol. If I were arrested, I would go to gaol—not happily, but I would be prepared to go on the basis that I feel that the trade is repugnant, lawful though it may be. I prefer not to defy the law, but I am prepared to take the consequences were that to be the case. I am not someone who readily makes heroic, useless sacrifices, despite the fact that I am a member of the Labour party.
The Parliamentary Secretary should recognise the strength of feeling outside and inside the House. If she takes unilateral action, she will have the overwhelming support of hon. Members of all parties. Go for it!

Mr. Piers Merchant: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) always seems to be making heroic gestures or offering to make them. I


very much agree with what he has said today. If the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) has done his homework thoroughly—I do not know to what extent he has—he will know my views on this subject. I have always had a principled objection to the export of live animals for any purpose except the conservation of species because I believe that such export is essentially cruel and it is impossible, however hard one tries, to make the moving of animals, especially larger animals over long distances or during arduous passages such as by sea, acceptable and fair to them. I have long held that view. I am not a new convert, suddenly influenced by the strength of public opinion or by having a port in my constituency, which I do not. I have held that view for many years on the basis of principle.
As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly said, the issue goes further than simply taking a stand on principle. We can all wear our principles on our sleeves, and it is sometimes right and proper to do so and I am not bashful about so doing on this subject. But we also have to consider the consequences of our actions and how best practically to pursue our principles. The House has a responsibility to consider those aspects. There are some difficulties and I recognise the problems that the Government face. I strongly welcome the debate and I hope that we shall have other opportunities to return to the subject.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton made a judgment on the previous debate, having been in his place for only about 10 minutes of it. Having been in the Chamber throughout that debate, I can say quite simply that I did not recognise the hon. Gentleman's judgment. Procedures of the House exist to allow hon. Members to raise various subjects and it is invidious to try to measure which subject is of greater worth at any one time. At least we have the opportunity to debate the subject now, which I welcome.
We have heard of the abuses involved in the live export trade. The transport system involves abuses such as long journeys and insufficient watering and feeding. I do not need to go into the detail because that is accepted ground. We have also heard of the problems faced by animals when they are abroad and of their poor treatment in some parts of the continent. We cannot police such treatment as we have no authority to do so. Long-distance travel for animals in this country should be avoided and I am glad that opinion, including opinion within the agriculture and farming sectors, is increasingly moving that way. I accept that it is sometimes necessary to move animals over distances, but the shorter those distances are, the better. We should aim to develop different farming techniques to make such transportation a thing of the past.
I have mentioned popular feeling and there is no doubt that it is strong. Moreover, I believe that it will inexorably grow stronger. Pressure has been brought on past Governments. In 1973 the then Conservative Government banned the export of most live animals in response to that pressure. The only shame was that two years later that decision was reversed. When the ban took place in 1973 it was done on the basis of article 36 of the treaty of Rome and I see no reason why that article should not also form the basis for similar action now. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that it is something worth trying.
This country could be taken to the European Court over the issue, and we could lose. But if that were to happen, it would be a clear sign of where the blame lies for the

people of this country and all who feel so strongly about this issue. Let us put the onus on the European institutions which want to take on the responsibility. If they want to move against the will of the British people, so be it. At least people will know where we stand and to what extent the powers of the institution of Parliament are limited by agreements in Europe—something that I deprecate on constitutional grounds.
The subject will continue to excite great concern among the British people. I believe that it will come to a head at some time, although perhaps now is not the moment. I cannot foretell, but I would be amazed if the people of this country were to forget about an issue which has caused so much concern in recent weeks. Things move in cycles and I believe that there will be further great expressions of concern. What has frustrated so many people—it has clearly frustrated many of my constituents as they have made clear to me—is the feeling that they have lost the democratic right to express their views and have them carried forward by their representatives in the House. Ministers and others say, "We sympathise, but we cannot do anything because of our international obligations"; yet people with strong feelings on the subject have no parallel ability to bring their influence to bear on those international institutions—particularly the European Court.
The people who have participated in recent demonstrations would not normally think of demonstrating, but I know from speaking to constituents that some did so out of frustration. They feel that it is no use coming to see Members of Parliament because they have been rendered powerless to act. That matter is serious in itself.
For all those reasons, I support the Bill's principles, even though I have doubts about some clauses. I hope that action will be taken, under the Bill or by some other mechanism, to halt the trade in transporting live animals, which is unacceptable to this country in principle and in practice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The Government understand the concerns that the welfare of exported animals should be fully safeguarded. We sympathise with the wish that lies behind the Bill—to do more to help to ensure the welfare of transported animals—but it presents legal and practical difficulties. It is not a question simply of legal constraints; the practicalities of implementation are also important considerations.
The topic has generated much comment, but it is only fair to make clear to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) from the outset that the Government cannot support his Bill.

Mr. Olner: I accept that the Bill, which was roughly drafted, might present technical difficulties, but does the Minister agree in principle with its thrust?

Mrs. Browning: I will go into detail, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the three-hour Adjournment debate recently, when my right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government attach importance to animal welfare. We will continue to take steps to ensure that welfare is improved—particularly in Europe, to bring it


up to the standards that already exist in our country. I want the hon. Gentleman to have as much information as possible about our reasons for being unable to support his Bill. I know that that will disappoint him, but it is the only honest thing to do.
Clause 1 would prohibit the export of live animals for slaughter but includes a repeal provision that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could use if he were satisfied that the Community rules envisaged in directive 91/628, article 13, covering such matters as journey limits, feeding and watering requirements, loading density standards and staging points were in place.
Clause 2 would prohibit the export of calves for any purpose from Great Britain to another country unless that country certified that it had rules on treatment of calves that were at least equivalent to our own. The House will be aware that this country has banned the raising of calves in veal crates.
It is important to repeat the legal advice given to the House, because it is relevant to this debate. We examined carefully the issues of live exports and of veal calf exports, particularly the legal dimension. We recently considered the best legal case that could be made in favour of measures banning the export of calves, or imposing selective restrictions aimed at calves. Selective restrictions of that sort might seek to ensure—as does the Protection of Calves (Export) Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—that calves can be exported only if they are destined for production systems that would meet British requirements. Alternatively, they might, as this Bill would, seek more sweepingly to prohibit the export of calves to countries where calves could legally be reared in conditions that are illegal in the United Kingdom.
The conclusion that emerges from the legal advice that we have obtained is that such selective measures could not be justified in Community law. Hon. Members will rightly want to know the reasoning that underlies this argument. I shall set it out, just as my right hon. Friend the Minister did in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 February. My right hon. Friend also wrote in some detail on 1 February to every hon. Member setting out the position in relation to current restrictions on calves. I know that the hon. Member for Nuneaton has received that correspondence.
First, the directive on welfare standards for calves forms part of the Community legislation governing trade in calves, and its terms preclude member states from introducing export restrictions. Article 36 of the treaty can in some circumstances justify export restrictions, on the grounds of the protection of the health and life of animals, which includes animal welfare. Several hon. Members have referred to that, but article 36 is available to member states only where there is no Community legislation governing the particular area. It is not applicable in this case, given the directive on welfare standards for calves, so a total ban on all calf exports would not on any basis be justified under article 36 because it would be disproportionate.
It is also highly probable that measures banning or restricting the export of calves would constitute an unacceptable interference with the operation of the common agricultural policy, as it relates to the market for beef and veal.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that he would be happy to pay compensation to hill farmers—

Mr. Tony Banks: Not on my own.

Mrs. Browning: It sounded generous, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of a great many other people who might be prepared to pay. It is not, however, just a question of compensating people who can no longer export direct from their farms. Our legal advice is that there could be claims not only from the original farmer but from people right through the production chain, including transporters and businesses on the other side of the channel—in short, all the recipients in the chain of production. There is therefore no quick fix whereby a little extra money to help farmers will resolve all the possible financial implications for the taxpayers of this country, who would ultimately have to pay the bill following any legal challenge that found the Government of the United Kingdom to be at fault.
The aspects that I have already mentioned mean that a selective export restriction on calves destined for crates or for rearing in countries whose welfare conditions do not match ours would be extremely difficult to defend legally and would be at high risk of being struck down in court.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Lady has told us about the legal advice given to her Department, but will she detach herself from that for a moment and tell us who would actually make a challenge? Have there been discussions with other EU Governments to find out whether they are sympathetic to our position, given the strength of public opinion in this country?

Mrs. Browning: It is not just a matter of our being challenged in the court through the Commission if we were found to be infringing Community law. As I have just explained, companies and individuals who felt that they had lost financially because of the United Kingdom Government taking unilateral action that they were not in a position to defend legally could make financial claims against the Government and, ultimately, against the taxpayer. If Ministers deliberately contravene the legal advice that they are given—to the effect that a challenge would be most likely to be upheld in court—they knowingly put the United Kingdom taxpayer in an unfortunate position. There is a great precedent throughout all Government Departments that it would be extremely serious for a Minister, against legal advice, to take such action in the knowledge that ultimately the Department would be likely to fail in court.
It has been suggested that Ministers should tough it out and that legal advice would come from people thinking along the lines of Ministers anyway. Hon. Members will know of the constraints on Ministers in fully publishing legal advice. As I have said, legal advice was taken from more than one source.

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend will have noticed that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on agriculture is in the Chamber.


Has the Labour leadership challenged the legal advice that the Government have received, and is the Leader of the Opposition urging the Government to break European law?

Mrs. Browning: I can inform my hon. Friend that there seems to be a variation of opinion between Opposition Front-Bench agriculture spokesmen. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said:
We do not accept that the Minister is necessarily correct in his interpretation of the legal position with regard to calves, although we certainly accept the position with regard to sheep."—[Official Report, 22 February, 1995; Vol. 255, c. 299.]
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is also an Opposition spokesman on agriculture, supports the Bill. Confusion reigns.

Mr. Tony Banks: There is no confusion.

Mrs. Browning: It is a matter that the hon. Gentleman should take up with his Front-Bench colleagues.

Mr. Banks: I do not want to score points. There is no confusion in the sense that the hon. Lady suggests. The point is that the issue is worth testing. I do not think that the legal case is watertight. That is all that I am saying. The Opposition no more have knowledge on the matter than, I suspect, the Government.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman says that the case is not legally watertight, yet in his speech he admitted that he was not a lawyer. I, too, am not a lawyer. As a Minister, I must take advice on behalf of the Ministry from lawyers. When advice is received from more than one lawyer and it is consistent, we must draw the conclusion that it will hold up. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that all Ministers take legal advice.
The same legal objections would apply to a prohibition on the export of live animals for slaughter given the existence of a directive on the welfare of animals in transit. I realise that many hon. Members will find the legal realities unwelcome. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. I have no doubt that it will be argued that if the case were worth going for, we should gamble on the result. I understand that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. He is in a very different position from a Minister who takes legal advice.

Mr. Tony Banks: Make my hon. Friend a Minister.

Mrs. Browning: I invite the hon. Member for Nuneaton to cross the Floor. If he does so, we may consider the matter.
To gamble in the way that some hon. Members suggest could not possibly be defended as a responsible approach for the Government to adopt. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that.
Relating the legal advice more specifically to the Bill, it is evident that a ban on the export of calves to, say, France and the Netherlands would apply not only to calves destined to be reared under systems in countries that would be acceptable to the United Kingdom but to those destined for veal crates. I am sure that the House will be aware that countries such as the Netherlands have welfare-friendly systems and also rear calves in crates. When I have visited countries to discuss veal crates, it has been encouraging to note that their representatives are willing to consider what we are demanding and what the

marketplace may ultimately demand in changing from the crate, which we abhor, to other more welfare-friendly systems.
We could not argue that the measure was proportionate, as we would have to under article 36. The legal problems with the Bill are conclusive enough in themselves, but I am afraid that there would be practical problems too. It is important to emphasise that, because it is not just, as Conservative Members have said, a case of our being trapped in some European directive, unable do anything about it. There are strong practical reasons why, even if the legislation were passed, the implementation of such a ban would cause difficulty.
Under clause 2, states wishing to receive calves from the UK would need to interpret our domestic legislation and compare it with their own. The person—we are now getting down to the practical detail of what might happen—responsible for the declaration about the compatibility of another member state's law with ours would be outside our jurisdiction. Given the scepticism that has been expressed in other discussions about the ability of other states to enforce Community requirements, I am not sure that the Bill would necessarily bring any practical welfare benefits. We would have to rely on the authorities of the importing member state to ensure that calves were, in fact, raised in conditions corresponding to those that apply in the UK, and there would be nothing in the Bill to prevent exporters from sending calves to other member states where the practical realities of animal welfare might not correspond to the terms of their legislation.
Some right hon. or hon. Members might be thinking that an alternative approach to that adopted in the Bill might avoid those legal and practical pitfalls. That line of thought might lead us to something like the provisions of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Carlisle, which would prohibit the export of calves where the exporter was not satisfied that the calves would be reared in their country of destination under a system that would comply with UK requirements. That approach would, perhaps, be slightly more defensible as meeting the test under article 36: measures must be proportionate to their purpose.
The measure would not, like the Bill before us today, prohibit the export of many calves destined for rearing systems acceptable to us, but the other substantial legal objections, which I have just explained, relating to the existence of Community standards for the welfare of calves and of a common agricultural policy market regime for beef and veal would remain. There would be serious practical problems. If it were shown that calves exported from Great Britain had ended up in a continental veal crate system, how would we establish that the exporter in the UK had committed the offence? The exporter would say that he had relied on assurances from his continental customer and that it was not his fault if the rearing system was not in accordance with those assurances or if the customer had taken the calves to premises that were unsatisfactory. We would face an insoluble problem in trying to monitor and control the movement of calves in the jurisdiction of another member state.
The Government have repeated many times that, ultimately, if we really care about the standards and welfare of farm animals and animals in transit, whether they are calves or any other animal, it is vital to have European legislation that can be enforced throughout Europe, because the real problem, as hon. Members on


both sides of the House have acknowledged, is not the difficulties of welfare standards in the UK or the good intentions of the vast majority of people who export from UK but ensuring high-standard, uniform enforcement throughout the EC.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sure that the whole House would endorse those sentiments, but will the Minister tell the House what chance she has of getting that measure of agreement among our European Union partners? I spoke slowly so that she could finish her drink.

Mrs. Browning: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being welfare friendly. As I am rested and watered, I shall continue. I shall come to the matter that he raises in more detail, but perhaps I could give a more immediate response to the issue of veal crates.
The responses of other member states, most of which I have visited, have been quite encouraging. I include countries such as Italy, which has a huge commercial interest. However, I do not want to mislead the House. I do not suggest that there will be a quick fix or an immediate solution. Other member states wish to see the matter brought to a satisfactory conclusion and I am reasonably optimistic that there will be some movement.
The issue of live animals in transit is more difficult, but we are determined to try to secure an agreement. There has been some movement by other member states and, as the House knows, we have pressed on two issues that are the nub of the matter and cause the real difficulty—maximum journey times and resting periods compatible with welfare.
As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister has had an opportunity to raise this matter in the Council and we hope that it will come before the Council again, certainly before the end of the French presidency. My right hon. Friend will continue to press and negotiate for an agreement on maximum journey time and a suitable period of rest. Perhaps I will deal with that later in more detail.
I was speaking about the difficulties that arise when calves are exported to a purchaser in another European country and about how we would enforce and monitor such exports. We would face an insoluble problem in trying to monitor and control the movement of calves that were in the jurisdiction of another member state. I do not think that it would work. However we sought to reformulate the provision, we would face the same insoluble problem of policing in another member state.
I do not want to drag the House into too much detail, but I want to make it clear that we have given these issues detailed consideration. I have given the House the flavour of that consideration. I emphasise, above all, that the Government, much as we sympathise with the Bill's underlying aims, cannot support the making of legislation that carries a high risk of successful legal challenge and that will not work. That is the basis of the legal problem that faces us.

Mr. Olner: We have been going down this path for two or three years, but the problem will not go away. There will continue to be protests about the conditions in which animals are being transported. I have a simple question for the Minister. If Denmark can ensure that its animal products are exported to the rest of Europe in packaged or in carcase form, why cannot we do the same with our excellent meat products?

Mrs. Browning: We are doing what we can. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Meat and Livestock Commission, whose marvellous efforts to try to get more trade on the hook rather than on the hoof I commend to the House. It has worked hard. For example, French cutters have come here to show how to cut carcases in the way that French supermarkets and housewives like so that more can be exported.
We are certainly in favour of more value-added products in the United Kingdom, but Governments cannot strike deals in the marketplace. It is for the market to determine the proportions of the live and on-the-hook trade. We shall help by the sort of efforts that we have been making with the MLC and by promotions such as the veal seminar that I held only a fortnight ago at MAFF headquarters to try to promote welfare-friendly veal.
Ideally, I would like to see pink, welfare-friendly veal exported to Italy on the hook. That would certainly be advantageous but it must be determined by the marketplace. I hope that the hon. Member for Nuneaton appreciates that although matters cannot be turned around overnight, we are working hard to maximise value added on this side of the channel. I hope that we will be more successful at that in future but even if we are there is a need for live animals to be sent across the channel.
We hope that the stance that we have taken on veal crates will result in a ban on their use throughout the European Community. We are also working hard to raise the standard of welfare of animals in transit, and some progress has been made. For example, it is accepted among our European partners that there should be a licensing system, and that licences should be revoked if transporters do not stick to the rules. If that could be policed on an EC-wide basis, it would be a great move forward.
We are stuck on the question of the maximum journey times and rest periods. Many other matters that have been agreed are waiting to be endorsed once we get over the final hurdle. My right hon. Friend, officials in the Ministry and myself have worked hard during the past month on the matter. If the message going out today from this House was that we in the UK—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 31 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

ENERGY-SAVING MATERIALS (RATE OF VALUE ADDED TAX) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [20 January].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 31 March.

ANIMAL HEALTH (EUROPEAN LAW) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 April.

PRISONERS (RETURN TO CUSTODY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 31 March.

LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 31 March.

NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 31 March.

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 31 March.

FINANCE BILL

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Wells.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 29th March, the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; the said Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &c. (negative procedure)) shall not apply.—[Mr. Wells.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Charles Hendry be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. David Martin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Sir Anthony Durant be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Iain Duncan Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

Business Rates (Leominster)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I very much welcome the chance to raise on behalf of my constituents the subject of business rates in Leominster. I should say at the outset that I welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, whom I last encountered in relation to domestic heating, when his contributions were most constructive. I trust that my hon. Friend will show the same spirit when he comes to reply to the present debate.
For the purposes of the debate—I shall try to make this point succinctly—I accept the system of the uniform business rate as it is. I must, however, declare an interest in that I spoke against the introduction of the rate, I voted against it and I remain against it now. There are two grounds for my opposition to the uniform business rate as a system, although I accept it for the purpose of proceeding practically with the debate.
First, I believe in the freedom of local government to tax in any local system of taxation. The present system is neither fish nor fowl, neither local freedom nor an effective central Government grant. Secondly—this is relevant to the present situation—any tax should relate as far as possible to the ability of any person or concern to pay it.
That brings me to the relevant points of background. When we came to reform the business and domestic rating systems, there was considerable delay. It took us from 1979 to 1985 to decide what to do about local government taxation. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the cry of the time was "Abolish the rates." But when we tried to go beyond the abolition to decide what on earth we were going to do by way of a new system, there was considerable difference and discord within the Government, the party and the country. The result was that there was no revaluation of property, and in particular business property, from 1973 until the 1990 revaluation. At the same time the reform, post-1985, came as a breathless rush. Half the reform—indeed, the major part—which dealt with the domestic system, as represented by the community charge, was rapidly discredited and is no more. We still have the other half—business rates—for better or for worse.
That brings me to the 1990 revaluation. Because of some of the facts that I have already mentioned, that gave vent to very large rises. The delay was an obvious cause. Also, the new system produced a north to south drift. The position was exacerbated by the recession for my constituents and for many others in the south and west. That led to another element of the problem, although it is a more welcome element—the concession of transitional arrangements in the 1992 Budget and in the two 1993 Budgets. The result was that when we reached the 1995 revaluation, many businesses were still not making the full payment under the 1990 revaluation. It is self-evident in what I am saying that the system is perpetually struggling gallantly, but sometimes in vain, to catch up with itself.
On the matter of the 1995 revaluation, I want to cite a few references—in note form—from the helpful letter that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government sent to colleagues. He said that under the 1995 revaluation there was little change in the total rateable value for businesses in England. He said that the effect on individual properties could be significant. He also said that the rentals of shops and offices in London and the south had been more depressed by the recession than those elsewhere. He then said that all that meant a shift in the rates burden from the south to the north.
What about us? What about the rural west midlands? What about many other areas that do not get the great boom that is claimed for the south of England? I speak for many of my hon. Friends in the border counties, the rural counties of the west midlands and the border marches. My constituency covers about 800 square miles and has two and a half sets of traffic lights. There are a large number of small rural businesses and many shopkeepers and traders in a number of market towns. It is such people, among others, who represent the bedrock of support for the Government my hon. Friend the Minister and I serve.
I know that my hon. Friend and his Department are concerned about the increasing menace to the traditions of the small trader from out-of-town supermarkets and, indeed, the whole cult of mechanised, motorised shopping—the large general stores, supermarkets, do-it-yourself stores, and so on. The result of all that is that many businesses, especially local shops, have gone out of business. Empty shops abound, as is all too frequently seen in our various market towns. The new shops that should usually replace them are not materialising. In many cases, would-be business men cannot afford to pay the full business rate that setting up a business would entail. What is more, they would find it difficult to compete with those who, ironically, are receiving the transitional relief that we have been good enough to grant them. That is seen as an unfair advantage, and the result is that when a shop closes it does not open again.
That leads me to some examples of the 1995 revaluation in my constituency. I have been given complete district figures by South Herefordshire district council. Overall, the rateable value increased by 26 per cent. Perhaps even more serious, the rateable value for factories and small workshops in rural areas increased by 36 per cent. I have four district councils, in whole or in part, in my constituency. In the Leominster district council region, the position is about the same.
I have received a petition from the Leominster chamber of trade. The rateable values of many shops included in that petition have increased by 50 per cent. The approaches that I have had from Bromyard show that those values have increased by more than 50 per cent. in many cases. One business in the border and market town of Kington came to see me in a somewhat irate condition. Its rateable value is up by 73 per cent.
In the village of Shobdon in Leominster district, there is a prime example. In 1990, a business there was assessed at a rateable value of £44,000. It appealed, but there was then considerable delay until just before the 1995 revaluation, when the rateable value was reduced to £25,000. However, in 1995 it then went back up to more than £40,000, and there will no doubt be another appeal. We could do without that kind of yo-yo situation.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the examples that I have given of businesses and, in particular, of shops. We have a separate mode of assessment for public houses and garages, based on a turnover link. The increases are extraordinary, if not excruciating. They do not take account of those businesses' profits—only the turnover is taken into consideration. I have two specific examples, both involving beautiful inns where I hold my constituency surgeries. My hon. Friend will know how lovely the region is. The Government Whip on duty is already nodding his head, so I appreciate his enthusiasm for the cause of the Leominster constituency.
The rateable value of the Crown Inn, Woolhope in 1994–95 was £6,500, with £1,780, after transitional relief, payable by way of business rate. In 1995–96, that has gone up from £6,500 to £31,300. The full amount that will be payable is £13,521. Few businesses can afford such increases. In 1994–95, the Red Lion Inn in Stiffords Bridge, Cradley near the Worcestershire border had a rateable value £6,500. In 1995–96, it went up to £27,250. The question I put to my hon. Friend is why—what is the justification for that? Can it be described as a fair system of taxation and the best way to encourage the survival of businesses?
I shall make six substantive points. First, I accept the system, as I have said, for better or for worse, but I urge that, in accepting it and in carrying it out, we should make it as fair as possible. Surely my hon. Friend would accept that criterion. Secondly, the system in my constituency and in the region is working unfairly—I hope I have said enough to demonstrate that.
Thirdly, the combination of the five-year revaluations, together with the recent recession and the prolongation of transitional relief, which is compounding that unfairness, are worsening the position. How do we get out of that position? What progress can be made? Fourthly, new shops and small businesses will not arrive in anything like the numbers needed to replace those that are going out of business. I stress their unfair competitive advantage vis-a-vis those who are on continuing transitional relief. Clearly, I would not deny that transitional relief, but anyone considering occupying an empty shop faces unfair competition and the situation, sadly, is getting worse.
My fifth point relates to the appeal procedure. I know that the Department is concerned that it has been very slow. There is an urgent need to expedite the process. Some businesses have not even caught up between revaluations. If we go on as we are, many of those who have to appeal again will still be awaiting the outcome of the previous revaluation or, as in the Shobdon example that I cited, will just have received it when that for the year 2000 comes due. Goodness knows what that will yield, based as it will be on the 1995 revaluation with which we are all desperately trying to catch up.
My sixth point relates to the valuation procedure and the system itself. I appreciate that the 1995 revaluation is based on rental values in April 1993, which was the tail end of the recession. At that time, rental values were worse, if anything, but there are still to be increases. It is claimed that, by some miracle, London and the south does better for that very reason, but we, too, suffered from the recession but have to meet almost incredible increases. We now face revaluation in the year 2000, possibly without even having caught up.
Last hut not least, I wish to make a straightforward political point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate why I do so. In these perhaps not easy political times, we are still hanging on—often narrowly—to the title "the party of small business". As I have said, in many respects, small businesses are the bedrock of our support. I say quite simply that we are letting them down and in too many instances we are kicking our long-standing supporters in the teeth. If we do not help them, we shall be held to electoral account.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has given me an opportunity to explain the background to the non-domestic rating revaluation which takes effect on 1 April. I must also explain to him who is responsible for what. Naturally, my hon. Friend is concerned for businesses in his area, but I hope that I can persuade him that the Government, too, have the interests of businesses at heart. That is why we introduced the national non-domestic rating system in 1990. My hon. Friend has in the past opposed the scheme, although I note that he has this afternoon confirmed his acceptance of it as it stands.
It has been almost five years since the abolition of locally set rates, and it would be easy to forget the regimes under which many businesses were forced to trade. I remind the House of those times. During the 1980s, under the system then supported by my hon. Friend, rates rose by, on average, 37 per cent. above inflation. That was because many councils—I should be the first to concede that this does not apply to all—chose to spend more, knowing that local businesses would pick up the bill.
We now have one poundage for England which cannot increase each year faster than the rate of inflation. I assure the House that businesses have not forgotten the old rates system. They value the commitment that the uniform business rate offers them. Now, if authorities want to spend, the cost falls where it should—on the council tax payer.
Rateable values in 1990 were based on the market for rented property in 1988—the first revaluation since 1973, as my hon. Friend said. Another commitment that we made then was to update rateable values every five years. That time has now come. The 1995 revaluation will come into force on 1 April, based on the market for rented property in 1993. The revaluation has been performed by local valuation officers—an independent role given to them by the House and one in which neither I nor any of my right hon. and hon. Friends can intervene.
Ratepayers have now been notified of their new rateable values and, as in 1990, there will be winners and losers. I know that some are surprised at the change in their value. These values are, however, determined by local valuation officers. They are highly experienced and have evidence of actual rents collected—indeed, from ratepayers themselves. But this evidence needs careful interpretation and other adjustments so that it represents fairly the rent that a hypothetical tenant would have been prepared to pay in a new letting in 1993. It is quite possible that, for example, these rents will, in some cases, have been granted alongside incentives, such as lump sum payments or a period when no rent is payable. That is


why the valuation officer also collects details of these incentives so that headline rents can be adjusted accordingly.
Of course, valuation officers are always willing to examine new evidence of the rental market. If my hon. Friend's constituents have evidence that suggests that their rateable values are wrong, they should contact the valuation officer at once. Indeed, I understand that he would welcome such a discussion. This is the course of action being followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who is well versed in the system that we are debating.
From the beginning of next month, ratepayers will have the opportunity to make proposals to change their value. During the 1995 rating list, there will be no restrictions on when proposals can be made. In addition, we are introducing new procedures to ensure that disagreements will be passed to the valuation tribunal as appeals within three months, not six months as is the case at present. I know that some ratepayers experienced delays in settling appeals against the 1990 list. My hon. Friend referred to that this afternoon. The 1990 revaluation was the first for 17 years, so that is not surprising. We hope that the new procedures for making and settling appeals will speed the process for the next quinquennium.
The Government are committed to helping businesses with their rates liability and to assisting them to adapt to potential increases. That is why we have introduced the transitional scheme. My latest information suggests that the scheme will limit increases in bills in both Leominster and Malvern Hills to, on average, 8 per cent. in real terms.
I shall remind the House of what the arrangements do. The transitional scheme will ensure that no business will face an increase of more than 10 per cent. plus inflation in 1995–96. For small businesses occupying property with a rateable value of less than £10,000—or less than £15,000 in London—increases will be limited to 7.5 per cent. plus inflation. Special rules also give further relief to small properties with both business and living accommodation. Their increases will be limited to 5 per cent. plus inflation. This will provide extra help to many sub-post offices and village shops, as well as many other small shops.
My hon. Friend is also concerned that new businesses will not be entitled to the relief. I assure him that this will not generally be the case. Transitional relief will continue on a property even if there is a change of ratepayer. New businesses moving into a property that has transitional relief will receive that benefit. However, property that did not appear in the rating list at 31 March 1995 will not get relief.
More than 4,000 ratepayers in the Leominster and Malvern Hills districts and 1.25 million in England will benefit from the scheme. Part of the cost of the transitional arrangements will be met by the Exchequer and part by limiting rate reductions. Further assistance would have been very expensive. The extra cost would have placed too great a burden on the national taxpayer or other ratepayers.
The arrangements are complicated and some ratepayers—and some hon. Members—will not have fully understood the way in which they work. However, most of them will now have received their bills and will see

the genuine protection the scheme offers them. Equally, some will be disappointed that the reduction they were expecting has been delayed. However, most, if not all, of those ratepayers will have faced increases in 1990. Many will have benefited from the 1990 transitional arrangements which were funded by limits on reductions to other ratepayers' bills. Now it is their turn to contribute.
The limits on increases will continue to apply until the next revaluation in 2000. Rateable values will then be updated again, probably to reflect the market in 1998. Of course, many ratepayers will not be paying their full bill by that time. We will not penalise them for that. If market rents for their property then fall relative to rents for other types of property, their rateable values will also fall. As such, they may never reach the full rates bill on their 1995 rateable value.
I know that my hon. Friend is also concerned that the revaluation will affect caravan parks in his constituency. He is not alone. Caravan parks in England and Wales are facing large, often very large, increases in rateable values. That is because valuation officers have changed the basis from which they derive rateable values. However, as I have said, I cannot intervene in those assessments. There may have to be test cases. Like all ratepayers, caravan park owners will benefit from the transitional relief scheme and may therefore never reach their full bill.
Turning to more general points, my hon. Friend has said that rates do not reflect the ability to pay the bill. I think that that is an over-simplification. Rates reflect the rentals that properties command and businesses would not occupy property if they could not afford those rentals. So there must be a link of a kind between rates and overall business profitability. Of course, the rental value of property will not always reflect the profitability of a particular business, but rates are a tax on property rather than on individual businesses.
The transitional arrangements will target relief on smaller businesses by reference to the value of their property. Services have to be supplied by local authorities regardless of whether a business is in profit. I am sure that most businesses prefer the present system to the increase in corporation tax which would otherwise be required.
If, despite that, my hon. Friend would still prefer to end non-domestic rates, he should read the research commissioned by my Department on the impact of rates on businesses. The key finding is that rates are not, in most cases, a significant burden on businesses. In fact, for the majority of principal trading companies, rates accounted for no more than 2 per cent. of turnover. The figures tended to be higher for small businesses, particularly retailers, but we have recognised that by treating the lowest value properties more favourably in our transitional relief scheme.
The report also showed that the 1990 transitional arrangements had been a success in mitigating the impact of the 1990 revaluation. The 1995 scheme is even more generous to those facing increases and I am sure that it will be equally successful. I hope that this opportunity to comment on my hon. Friend's points will be helpful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.